Ft. Detrick/W. Reed Army Med. Housing v. Wynn

majority opinion

Fort Detrick/Walter Reed Army Medical Center Housing LLC v. Robert Wynn, No. 28,

September Term, 2025. Opinion by Biran, J.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION – ENCLAVE CLAUSE – ACCEPTANCE OF

JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES – The Enclave Clause of the United States

Constitution provides that Congress has the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation …

over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same

shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful

Buildings[.]” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. For the United States to obtain exclusive

jurisdiction over property under the Enclave Clause, three things must occur: (1) the State

must consent to the United States’ acquisition of the property in question; (2) the State

must cede its jurisdiction over the property to the United States; and (3) the United States

must indicate its acceptance of the ceded jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Maryland

held that the fact that the United States obtained legal title to the property at issue did not

indicate the United States’ acceptance of jurisdiction over that property.

REAL PROPERTY – SUMMARY EJECTMENT ACTION – PROOF OF

EXEMPTION FROM LICENSURE – A landlord that does not possess a required

residential rental license may not file a summary ejectment action under Md. Code Ann.,

Real Prop. (“RP”) § 8-401 (1974, 2023 Repl. Vol.) seeking to evict a tenant. Under RP § 8-406, a landlord in a jurisdiction mandating licensure of residential rental property must

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence at trial in a summary ejectment action that

the property listed in the complaint is licensed, exempt from licensure, or unlicensed due

to one of several enumerated reasons. The landlord in this case claimed that it was exempt

from Montgomery County’s rental license regulations because the United States has

exclusive jurisdiction under the Enclave Clause over the landlord’s apartment complex.

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that because the landlord failed to show that the

United States has exclusive jurisdiction over the property underneath the apartment

complex, the landlord failed to establish that Montgomery County’s rental regulations are

preempted by the Enclave Clause. Because the landlord failed to meet its burden at trial to

show that it is exempt from Montgomery County’s license requirements, the District Court

should have entered judgment for the tenant.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No.: C-15-CV-24-003800

Argued: December 5, 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

No. 28

September Term, 2025

FORT DETRICK/WALTER REED ARMY

MEDICAL CENTER HOUSING LLC

ROBERT WYNN

Fader, C.J.

Watts

Booth

Biran

Gould

Eaves

Killough,

JJ.

Opinion by Biran, J.

Filed: June 23, 2026

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal

Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State

Government Article) this document is authentic.

2026.06.23

16:20:44 -04'00'

Gregory Hilton, Clerk

Montgomery County requires that the owner of a residential property located within

the County obtain a license before operating the property as rental housing. A landlord that

does not possess a required rental license may not file a summary ejectment action in the

District Court of Maryland seeking to evict a tenant. This case involves an unlicensed

landlord in Montgomery County that filed such an action. The landlord contends that it is

exempt from the County’s licensure requirement because the property in question is subject

to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

Petitioner/Cross-Respondent Fort Detrick/Walter Reed Army Medical Center

Housing LLC (the “Landlord”) owns and operates Glen Haven Apartments (“Glen

Haven”), a multi-family housing complex in Wheaton, Maryland, located on land first

acquired by the United States in 1941. Glen Haven was constructed in 2005 as part of the

Military Housing Privatization Initiative (“MHPI”), 10 U.S.C. § 2871 et seq., which was

enacted to facilitate affordable private housing for servicemembers. Glen Haven’s tenants

include servicemembers assigned to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

(“Walter Reed”) and their families.

Under the terms of the MHPI, the Landlord prioritizes the leasing of units at Glen

Haven to servicemembers. However, if there are vacant units at Glen Haven that are not

needed by servicemembers, the Landlord may lease them to civilians. Respondent/CrossPetitioner Robert Wynn was a civilian tenant at Glen Haven. After Mr. Wynn failed to pay

rent that was due under his lease, the Landlord filed a summary ejectment action in the

District Court of Maryland sitting in Montgomery County, seeking Mr. Wynn’s eviction.

Mr. Wynn moved to dismiss the case, based on the Landlord’s failure to obtain a

rental license. In response, the Landlord claimed that it is exempt from licensure because

Glen Haven is located on land covered by Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the United

States Constitution. That relatively obscure provision of the Constitution, which is known

as the Enclave Clause, states that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction

over all property purchased by the federal government, with the consent of the legislature

of the state in which the property is located, for the purpose of erecting forts, magazines,

arsenals, dockyards, and other “needful [b]uildings[.]” The Landlord asserted that, because

Glen Haven constitutes a “needful” building located within a federal enclave, it is subject

to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, and the County licensure regulations do not apply.

The District Court ruled that Glen Haven is exempt from licensure and entered an

order of summary ejectment against Mr. Wynn. Mr. Wynn appealed to the Circuit Court

for Montgomery County, which reversed the judgment of the District Court. The circuit

court concluded that Glen Haven is located within a federal enclave, but nevertheless ruled

that the Landlord is required to obtain a license with respect to units the Landlord rents to

civilians.

The parties filed cross-petitions for certiorari, which we granted to decide whether

the Enclave Clause preempts Montgomery County licensure regulations that would

otherwise be applicable to Glen Haven and, in particular, to units rented to civilians. After

we granted review, the case proceeded down a somewhat long and winding road, as we

recount below. The premise upon which the parties litigated the case in the lower courts –

that Glen Haven is located on land that is covered by the Enclave Clause – turned out to be

debatable.

It was the Landlord’s burden at trial to demonstrate by a preponderance of the

evidence that it is exempt from otherwise applicable rental licensing requirements. Because

the Landlord did not establish at trial that any portion of Glen Haven is subject to the

exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the Landlord failed to meet its burden. For this

reason, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Mr. Wynn on different grounds.

Background

A. Glen Haven and the MHPI

The United States acquired the approximately 20-acre parcel of land upon which

Glen Haven sits (the “Property”) by condemnation in August 1941, see United States v.

James F. Windham et. al., Civil Docket No. 1304 (D. Md. 1941), 1 and has held fee simple

title to the Property since that time. In 2004, the Landlord acquired the rights to construct

Glen Haven as part of the MHPI. Under the MHPI, private-sector developers and property

management companies lease land owned by the United States, and then develop, own,

operate, and maintain rental housing units on that land.

The 2004 ground lease agreement between the Landlord and the United States (by

the Secretary of the Army) provides that the United States is the sole owner of the Property,

We take judicial notice of a map of the Property that is attached to the 1941

condemnation court order. See note 7 below. The map states the acreage of the Property as

19.938 acres.

while the Landlord owns the approximately 300 housing units and improvements that

comprise Glen Haven. Glen Haven provides subsidized family housing for

servicemembers assigned to Walter Reed. However, it also advertises and rents units to

civilians.

B. Montgomery County Licensure Requirements

Montgomery County’s licensure requirements for residential rental units were

enacted initially in 1972. In Montgomery County, “[t]he owner of a dwelling unit must

obtain a rental housing license before operating the dwelling unit as rental housing.”

Montgomery Cnty. Code, art. 3, § 29-16(a). A “Class 1 rental housing license is required

for each apartment complex and personal living quarters building, and for each multifamily

dwelling unit operated as rental housing.” Id. § 29-16(c). In general, a Class 1 multi-family

rental licensee is assessed an annual fee of “$44.00 per dwelling unit in an apartment

complex,” subject to annual increase established by regulation. Id. § 29-20(a)(1)(A), (d)(1).

C. Summary Ejectment Actions Under Maryland Law

Maryland law provides a statutory cause of action that a landlord may use to seek

repossession of rental property based on a tenant’s failure to pay rent. See Md. Code Ann.,

Real Prop. (“RP”) § 8-401 (1974, 2023 Repl. Vol.). Commonly referred to as the “summary

ejectment statute,” RP § 8-401 “empower[s] the court to enter a money judgment for the

amount of rent determined to be owing and also to issue an order for the tenant to yield

possession of the premises when the jurisdiction over the tenant has been obtained.”

Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offs. of Edward J. Maher, P.C., 480 Md. 394, 430 (2022) (citation

omitted). Summary ejectment proceedings are expedited. Id. After a landlord files a

complaint for summary ejectment, the District Court issues a summons for the tenant to

appear before the court for a trial on the fifth day following the filing of the complaint, and

to show cause why the relief sought by the landlord should not be granted. RP § 8-401(b)(4)(i)-(ii). The court is authorized, in “the interests of justice,” to adjourn the trial

for one day to permit either party to procure necessary witnesses, but the court may not

adjourn the trial for longer than one day unless all parties consent. Id. § 8-401(e)(1). If

judgment is entered in favor of the landlord, the court must order that possession be given

to the landlord no more than four days after the trial. Id. § 8-401(e)(3).

As we said in Assanah-Carroll, a summary ejectment action under RP § 8-401 “is

a powerful tool that enables the landlord to enforce [its] contractual right to collect unpaid

rent in an efficient and expedient manner.” 480 Md. at 431. However, a landlord’s right to

file this action is “not unfettered.” Id. Under Maryland common law, a landlord that does

not possess a current required license to operate the premises may not initiate a summary

ejectment proceeding. McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560, 563 (2011). In addition,

even if a landlord who lacked a license subsequently obtains one, the now-licensed landlord

may not use the courts (including through a summary ejectment action) to recover unpaid

rent that is attributable to an unlicensed period. Assanah-Carroll, 480 Md. at 440.

In 2023, the General Assembly added section 8-406 to the Real Property Article.

That statute requires a landlord in a jurisdiction mandating licensure of residential rental

property to provide proof of licensure at trial in certain actions seeking to repossess

residential property, including a summary ejectment action. Under § 8-406, on the filing of

a complaint seeking summary ejectment, the landlord “shall plead with supporting facts”

that the property at issue is:

(1) Licensed in compliance with applicable local rental licensing

requirements;

(2) Exempt from applicable local rental licensing requirements; or

(3) Unlicensed for reasons described under subsection (c)(1)(iii), (iv),

or (v) of this section.

RP § 8-406(b). 2 At trial, the landlord must prove the truth of the assertion it pled under

§ 8-406(b) in the complaint. That is, the landlord must demonstrate by a preponderance of

the evidence that the property listed in the complaint is licensed, exempt from licensure, or

unlicensed due to one of the reasons referenced in subsection (c)(1)(iii), (iv), or (v). Id.

§ 8-406(c)(1).

D. This Case

Mr. Wynn began his tenancy at Glen Haven on December 1, 2022, under the terms

of a Resident Responsibility Agreement (the “Lease”). The Lease required Mr. Wynn to

pay monthly rent in the amount of $2,630. The Lease did not specify that a particular

jurisdiction’s laws and regulations would govern the relationship between Mr. Wynn and

the Landlord. The Lease likewise was silent concerning an applicable dispute resolution

process or venue for such a process.

The reasons for the lack of licensure described in subsection (c)(1)(iii), (iv), and

(v) involve circumstances where the landlord is not at fault (i.e., the lack of licensure results

from a wrongful act of the tenant or is due to an administrative error or omission by the

licensing authority) or where the lack of licensure of a single-license multi-family property

is attributable to a unit that is not the subject of the action for repossession. See RP § 8-406(c)(1)(iii), (iv), & (v).

On February 5, 2024, the Landlord filed a summary ejectment action against Mr.

Wynn in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Montgomery County, seeking judgment

for possession and unpaid rent. The Landlord alleged that Mr. Wynn failed to pay his

monthly rent for the period between October 1, 2023 and January 31, 2024. On the

complaint form, the Landlord pled that Glen Haven was exempt from licensure

requirements applicable to rental properties.

Mr. Wynn did not dispute his failure to pay rent or the total amount of $10,542 the

Landlord alleged as unpaid rent. Instead, he argued that because the Landlord did not

possess a residential rental license with respect to Glen Haven for the relevant time period,

as required under Montgomery Cnty. Code, art. 3, § 29-16(a), the Landlord could not

recover unpaid rent from Mr. Wynn. In response, the Landlord argued that Montgomery

County’s rental licensure requirements are inapplicable because Glen Haven is located on

a federal enclave subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. The Landlord pointed to a letter

from the Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs (“DHCA”),

dated February 15, 2012, which stated that, “due to the nature and operation of Glen

Haven…, it is exempt from the [County licensing] requirements[.]” 3 2F

Based on the DHCA letter, the District Court found that “it’s clear that the County

had every intention of exempting this project from falling under the provisions as set forth

In a February 8, 2012 letter to Associate County Attorney Vickie L. Gaul, counsel

for an entity affiliated with the Landlord asserted that Glen Haven should be exempt from

Montgomery County’s rental licensure requirements due to the U.S. Army’s “ownership

of title to the underlying ground” as well as the Army’s “jurisdictional oversight and

control.”

under the Housing code.” Having concluded that the Landlord is exempt from the County’s

licensure requirements, the District Court entered an order of summary ejectment and

entered judgment for unpaid rent in the amount of $10,542 in favor of the Landlord.

Mr. Wynn timely appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The circuit

court conducted a record appeal hearing on October 16, 2024. On May 5, 2025, the circuit

court issued an Opinion and Order reversing the District Court’s ruling. 4 The court

concluded that the Landlord is not exempt from Montgomery County’s licensure

requirements as applied to units leased to civilian tenants. Having found that the Landlord

was required to possess a license to be able to collect rent from Mr. Wynn, and there being

no dispute that the Landlord lacked such a license, the court vacated the District Court’s

order of summary ejectment and entry of judgment for unpaid rent. The court entered

judgment in favor of Mr. Wynn.

E. Proceedings in This Court

The Landlord filed a petition for certiorari, asking us to review two questions:

1. Whether the Circuit Court’s Opinion violates the Enclave Clause of the

United States Constitution by: (a) subjecting real property within a

At the appeal hearing on October 16, 2024, at the suggestion of the circuit court,

counsel for the Landlord stated that the Landlord would attempt to obtain a rental license

under the Montgomery County Code. Based on that representation, the circuit court did not

immediately rule on Mr. Wynn’s appeal, and instead set a status hearing for December

2024. The Landlord requested and obtained several postponements of the hearing to

continue its licensure efforts. Then, in April 2025, the Landlord filed a motion to dismiss

the appeal as moot. The Landlord informed the circuit court that it had filed additional

summary ejectment actions against Mr. Wynn in the District Court for his failure to pay

rent for the periods between March 1 through April 30, 2024, and June 1 through August

31, 2024. The Landlord apprised the circuit court that it was granted judgment for

possession in both of these subsequently filed cases. Although Mr. Wynn did not appeal

those judgments, the circuit court denied the Landlord’s motion to dismiss.

federal enclave to local regulation and fees based on the military status of

its tenants, rather than the important federal purpose for which the

property was initially constructed and is being operated; and (b) imposing

local regulations on Petitioner that are inconsistent with federal law

governing management of the property within the enclave.

2. Whether the local licensure regulations of the Code imposed by the

Circuit Court are preempted by 10 U.S.C. § 2871, et. seq. pursuant to

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the “Supremacy

Clause”).

Mr. Wynn filed a conditional cross-petition for certiorari. He also requested that we

review two questions:

1. Whether a private, for-profit residential housing provider open to

civilians is exempt from local rental licensure requirements under the

Enclave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17 by

virtue of the ground lease between the provider and the U.S. Army?

2. If not, whether the licensure requirement applies to the property as a

whole or to individual units rented by civilians at any given time?

We granted both petitions, Fort Detrick/Walter Reed Army Med. Hous., LLC v.

Wynn, 492 Md. 382 (2025), and agreed to review a single reformulated question:

Does the Enclave Clause of the United States Constitution preempt County

licensure regulations applicable to: (a) the petitioner’s entire apartment

complex; or (b) if not, units rented to civilians?

The parties filed briefs in due course. Two days before the scheduled oral argument,

the Court by letter alerted the parties’ counsel to a document issued by the United States

General Services Administration in 1964 titled “Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status

of Federal Areas within the States As of June 30, 1962” (the “Inventory Report”). 5 The 4F

Relevant pages of the Inventory Report are attached to this opinion as an

Appendix. A full copy of the Inventory Report may be reviewed at https://perma.cc/H6VK7J49. All highlighting and handwritten notations contained in the Inventory Report were

already in the document when the Court first accessed it online.

Court’s letter noted that the Inventory Report includes a listing that seemingly refers to the

Property. The listing is for a parcel located in Montgomery County, Maryland, with the

description “REED WALTER AMC GLENHAV.” See App., Inventory Rep. at 343. The

listing states that the acquisition year for the parcel was 1947, and its acreage to the nearest

tenth is 20.0. Id. In addition, the Court’s letter to counsel stated that the Inventory Report

categorizes the jurisdictional status of the Property as “proprietorial interest only,” and

defines that term as “those instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired some

right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority

over the area.” 6

The Court’s letter requested that counsel “be prepared at oral argument to address:

(1) whether the Court may take judicial notice of information included in the Inventory

[Report]; and (2) the relevance of that information to the issues presented in this appeal.”

On December 4, 2025, the Landlord filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice of

Condemnation Proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The Inventory Report’s definition of “proprietorial interest only” also states that

“[i]n applying this definition, recognition should be given to the fact that the United States,

by virtue of its functions and authority under various provisions of the Constitution, has

many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders with respect to areas

in which it acquires an interest, and of the further fact that all its properties and functions

are held or performed in a governmental rather than a proprietary capacity.” See chart on

unnumbered page of the Inventory Report (seventh page of the excerpt included in the

Appendix). One such power uniquely possessed by the United States can be found in the

Property Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “Congress shall have Power to …

make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property

belonging to the United States[.]” See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2; see also United States

v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839, 846-47 (6th Cir. 2008) (the federal government holds authority

over its property beyond that of an ordinary proprietor even if it expressly declined a state’s

cession of jurisdiction at the time of acquisition).

In that motion, in addition to requesting that this Court take judicial notice of several

documents from the 1941 condemnation proceeding that were attached to the motion as

exhibits, the Landlord stated that it had no objection to the Court taking judicial notice of

the Inventory Report. 7 The parties presented oral arguments the next day.

On December 9, 2025, the Court issued an order for supplemental briefing. The

Order recited that “[i]t has come to the attention of the Court that a document titled

‘Suburbanization Historic Context and Survey Methodology, I-495/I-95 Capital Beltway

Corridor Transportation Study, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland’

was prepared for the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway

Administration … in November 1999 (‘the Study’).” The Order further stated that,

according to the Study, the Glen Haven subdivision “first appeared on planning maps in

1944,” and that “[b]eginning in 1947, the Army maintained this group of houses for

personnel at the Walter Reed Army Hospital Annex ….” We requested supplemental

briefing on two questions:

1. In light of information in the “Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status

of Federal Areas Within the States As of June 30, 1962” (“the Inventory”)

and the Study, whether the United States Army first maintained

residential housing buildings at the Glen Haven site in 1947 and whether

under Md. Code Ann., Gen. Provisions § 6-201 residential housing

buildings built at the site in 1947 or thereafter constitute property

acquired by the United States or a unit of the United States after May 31,

1943, that the State of Maryland has reserved its jurisdiction and authority

over.

By separate Order, we have granted the Landlord’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice

of Condemnation Proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland.

2. If the property at issue is located within a federal enclave under Article I,

Section 8 of the United States Constitution (the “Enclave Clause”) and if

the Court determines, as argued by Petitioner, that “only state and local

laws existing at the time of the federal government’s acquisition of the

land underlying Glen Haven continue to remain enforceable[,]” (see Brief

of Petitioner at 8), what Maryland statute, if any, applied to Petitioner’s

summary ejectment action and how would such statute apply in today’s

judicial structure?”

The parties subsequently submitted supplemental briefs and supplemental response briefs.

Standard of Review

The questions we must decide in this appeal are ones of law. Therefore, our review

is de novo. See, e.g., Balt. Police Dep’t v. Open Just. Balt., 485 Md. 605, 644-45 (2023).

III

Discussion

In the lower courts and in their initial briefs filed in this Court, the parties agreed

that the Property is covered by the Enclave Clause. The Landlord argued that the Enclave

Clause preempts the licensing requirements of the County Code as applied to the entirety

of Glen Haven. Mr. Wynn contended that, notwithstanding the Property’s status as a

federal enclave, the Enclave Clause does not apply to Glen Haven because it is used solely

for private rental housing. In addition, Mr. Wynn asserted that the Landlord waived

whatever preemptive status would otherwise apply to Glen Haven once it invoked the

summary ejectment procedure available under Maryland law.

In its supplemental briefs, the Landlord adheres to its argument that the Enclave

Clause applies to the Property. Mr. Wynn is less convinced of that point, given the

information contained in the Inventory Report. Regardless of the status of the Property as

a federal enclave, Mr. Wynn continues to assert that the Enclave Clause does not preempt

the County’s licensure regulations as applied to rental units that are located on the Property.

We need not address the arguments that Mr. Wynn has raised concerning the

application of the Enclave Clause to Glen Haven itself. We hold that the Landlord did not

establish that the United States accepted exclusive federal jurisdiction over the Property.

Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the Enclave Clause applies to Glen Haven and,

consequently, that Montgomery County lacks legislative jurisdiction over Glen Haven. It

follows that the Landlord failed to meet its burden at trial to demonstrate by a

preponderance of the evidence that it is exempt from licensure.

A. The Requirements for the Federal Government’s Acquisition of Jurisdiction

Over Property in Maryland in 1941

Federal Law

“The power of the federal government to acquire land within a state, either by

purchase or condemnation, is well established.” United States v. Davis, 726 F.3d 357, 363

(2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

However, the federal government’s acquisition of jurisdiction over land does not

necessarily flow from its acquisition of title. Whether the United States is deemed to have

acquired jurisdiction over acquired land involves a complicated and somewhat

counterintuitive process. To understand that process – and specifically, how the process

worked at the time the federal government obtained title to the Property – we begin with

the Enclave Clause itself.

The Enclave Clause provides that Congress has the power to “exercise exclusive

Legislation … over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in

which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and

other needful Buildings[.]” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. As relevant here, the plain

language of the Enclave Clause seems to condition the exercise of exclusive federal

jurisdiction 8 on one event only: the State’s consent to the federal acquisition of land within

the State’s boundaries. 9 Indeed, until the twentieth century, the Enclave Clause was

understood to mean that when the federal government purchases land with the consent of

the State for the purpose of building forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other

“needful” buildings, exclusive federal jurisdiction over the acquired land is automatic. See

Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930) (“The question is not an open one.

It long has been settled that, where lands for … a purpose [referenced in the Enclave

Clause] are purchased by the United States with the consent of the state Legislature, the

jurisdiction theretofore residing in the state passes, in virtue of the constitutional provision,

to the United States, thereby making the jurisdiction of the latter the sole jurisdiction.”).

The phrase “exclusive Legislation” as used in the Enclave Clause means exclusive

jurisdiction. See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937).

The eminent domain power of the United States allows it to acquire title to

property necessary for the performance of governmental functions without the consent of

the state where the property is located. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371-72

(1875). If land is acquired without consent of the state, the United States does not acquire

any jurisdiction over the land by virtue of its proprietorship. See Dravo Contracting, 302

U.S. at 141-42.

However, in 1937, the United States Supreme Court held in James v. Dravo

Contracting Company that a state may condition its consent to the federal government’s

acquisition of title to property within the state upon the state’s retention of jurisdiction over

the property, provided that such retention of jurisdiction is “consistent with the

governmental purposes for which the property was acquired.” 302 U.S. 134, 147 (1937).

The Court also observed that the federal government might not want in every case to obtain

exclusive federal jurisdiction over acquired land:

As the Solicitor General has pointed out, a transfer of legislative jurisdiction

carries with it not only benefits, but obligations, and it may be highly

desirable, in the interest both of the national government and of the state, that

the latter should not be entirely ousted of its jurisdiction. The possible

importance of reserving to the state jurisdiction for local purposes which

involve no interference with the performance of governmental functions is

becoming more and more clear as the activities of the government expand

and large areas within the states are acquired.

Id. at 148. Thus, the Court summed up, “[t]here appears to be no reason why the United

States should be compelled to accept exclusive jurisdiction or the state be compelled to

grant it in giving its consent to purchases.” Id.

Seemingly responding to the Court’s comments in Dravo Contracting, Congress

amended 40 U.S.C. § 255 in 1940 to provide that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision

of law, the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests

therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall not be required[.]” Id.

(emphasis added). The statute provided that the extent to which the United States obtains

jurisdiction over acquired land depends on the type of jurisdiction consented to or ceded

by the State:

[T]he head or other authorized officer of any department or independent

establishment or agency of the Government may, in such cases and at such

times as he may deem desirable, accept or secure from the State in which any

lands or interests therein under his immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control

are situated, consent to or cession of such jurisdiction, exclusive or partial,

not theretofore obtained, over any such lands or interests as he may deem

desirable[.]

Id. (emphasis added). If a state consented to the United States’ acquisition of property

located in the state, and if the state ceded jurisdiction over that property to the United States,

there was still another step that the federal government had to take to actually acquire that

jurisdiction. An authorized officer of the government had to “indicate acceptance of such

jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing a notice of such acceptance with the

Governor of such State or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the

State where such lands are situated.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, as of 1940, United States

agencies and authorities were required to “accept exclusive or partial jurisdiction over

lands acquired by the United States by filing a notice with the Governor of the state [in]

which the land is located or by taking other similar appropriate action.” Adams v. United

States, 319 U.S. 312, 313 (1943); United States v. Cassidy, 571 F.2d 534, 536 (10th Cir.

1978) (“As to lands acquired by the United States after 1940, it has been held that the

United States does not acquire jurisdiction over lands acquired by it unless it gives notice

of acceptance.”).

The 1940 amendment also provided that “[u]nless and until the United States has

accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be

conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.” Id. (emphasis

added). 10 In other words, the acquisition of title to property with the consent of the State

and the State’s accompanying cession of jurisdiction over that property, without an

additional qualifying act of acceptance of jurisdiction, could not be deemed to give rise to

federal jurisdiction over the property. This reversed the previously longstanding

understanding that the federal government’s acquisition of title to land automatically vested

exclusive legislative jurisdiction over that land in the United States.

Maryland Law

Many years before Congress amended 40 U.S.C. § 255 in 1940, the General

Assembly enacted a series of statutes concerning the federal government’s acquisition of

land and acquisition of jurisdiction over that land within Maryland. These provisions were

The relevant portion of 40 U.S.C. § 255 has since been amended and recodified

seemingly without substantive change. It currently provides:

(a) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION NOT REQUIRED.–It is not required that the

Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over

land or an interest in land it acquires.

(b) ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF JURISDICTION.–When the head of

a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government,

or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent

establishment, considers it desirable, that individual may accept or secure,

from the State in which land or an interest in land that is under the

immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control of the individual is situated,

consent to, or cession of, any jurisdiction over the land or interest not

previously obtained. The individual shall indicate acceptance of

jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by filing a notice of acceptance

with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws

of the State where the land is situated.

been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as

provided in this section.

40 U.S.C. § 3112 (effective Aug. 21, 2002).

contained in the since-repealed Article 96 of the Maryland Code. Many of these statutes

referenced the Enclave Clause. For example, Article 96, § 1 provided that “[t]he consent

of the State is given to the purchase by the government of the United States … [of land] …

for the purpose of erecting thereon light-houses, beacons and other aids to navigation; …

the consent herein given being in accordance with the seventeenth clause of the eighth

section of the first article of the constitution of the United States[].” Md. Code Ann., Art.

96, § 1 (1939). 11 This provision was originally enacted in 1874. See 1874 Md. Laws 274

10F

(ch. 193).

Sections 31, 32, and 33 of Article 96 were broadly worded provisions that governed

acquisitions of land in the State that the federal government required as “sites for custom

houses, courthouses, postoffices, arsenals or other public buildings whatever, or for any

other purposes of the government.” Art. 96, § 31 (1939). Section 31 stated that the State’s

“consent … is hereby given in accordance with [the Enclave Clause] to the acquisition by

As of 1941, sections 1 through 17 of Article 96 concerned land acquired for the

construction of lighthouses, beacons, and other aids to navigation. Other sections of Article

96 concerned the federal government’s acquisition of lands for other specific purposes.

Sections 19 through 21 spelled out requirements for land acquired for the erection of “forts,

magazines, arsenals, coast defences or other fortifications”; sections 22 and 23 for “the

construction of a highway from the city of Washington, District of Columbia, to

Gettysburg, State of Pennsylvania”; sections 24 through 26 for the erection of a public

building in Laurel, Prince George’s County; section 27 for the erection of a public building

in Cumberland, Allegany County; section 29 for “all the lands lying under the waters of

Carr’s creek, in Anne Arundel County” for “a rifle range for the Naval Academy,

Annapolis, Maryland”; section 30 for “the cemetery located near Point Lookout, in St.

Mary’s County”; sections 34 through 35 for “a road or highway from the District of

Columbia to Winthrop Post Office, in Charles County”; and section 36 for “a calibration

range in the mouth of the Potomac River along the south bank.”

the United States by purchase, condemnation or otherwise of any land in this State” that

was required for such sites.

Section 32 provided that “[e]xclusive jurisdiction in and over any land so acquired

by the United States shall be and the same is hereby ceded to the United States for all

purposes except the service upon such sites of all civil and criminal process of the courts

of this State,” and further provided that “the jurisdiction so ceded shall continue no longer

than the said United States shall own such lands.”

Section 33 stated that “[t]he jurisdiction ceded shall not vest until the United States

shall have acquired the title to said lands by purchase, condemnation or otherwise” and

provided for exemption of such lands from State, county, and municipal taxation,

assessments, and other charges.

Sections 31, 32, and 33 were originally enacted in 1906. See 1906 Md. Laws 1254

(ch. 743). Although Article 96 was eventually repealed, its provisions relating to cession

of jurisdiction survive to the extent they are applicable to federal acquisitions that occurred

on or before May 31, 1943. See Md. Code Ann., Gen. Provisions § 6-201(b) (2014, 2019

Repl. Vol.). Because the circumstances addressed in §§ 32 and 33 occurred with respect to

the Property before May 31, 1943, we conclude that the Article 96 provisions are applicable

here. 12 However, as discussed below, these Article 96 provisions have no bearing on the

11F

United States’ acceptance of jurisdiction.

Mr. Wynn argues that the listing in the Inventory Report of 1947 as the “date

acquired” of the Property means that we ought not apply §§ 32 and 33 to this case. It is

unclear why the Inventory Report provides an acquisition date of 1947 for the Property.

One possible explanation is that the 1947 date refers to the year when buildings were first

B. The Landlord Has Not Shown That the United States Accepted Jurisdiction

Over the Property As Required By 40 U.S.C. § 255.

The Landlord argues that the United States acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the

Property when it acquired the Property by condemnation in 1941 and caused the judgment

of condemnation to be recorded in the land records of Montgomery County in or about

January 1942. We disagree.

The Landlord’s argument proceeds as follows. First, under Article 96, § 31, the State

consented to the United States’ acquisition of title to the Property, which provided the

State’s “consent … in accordance with [the Enclave Clause] to the acquisition by the

United States by purchase, condemnation or otherwise of any land in this State” that was

required for sites for “any … purposes of government.” 1312F

Second, under Article 96, § 32, the State ceded exclusive jurisdiction (except as to

service of process of Maryland courts) over the Property to the United States. That statute

provided that “[e]xclusive jurisdiction in and over any land” acquired by the United States

under the terms of § 31 “shall be and the same is hereby ceded to the United States for all

purposes except [for service of process].”

erected on the Property. Ultimately, the point is moot because the Landlord has not

produced evidence that the Property was a federal enclave in 1941-42 or in 1947.

It is undisputed that the United States acquired the Property because it was

required for use as a site that would further a governmental purpose. In this regard, we take

judicial notice of the Petition for Condemnation that the United States filed in the United

States District Court with respect to the Property in 1941. See note 7 above. The Petition

for Condemnation stated that the United States was taking the Property “in connection with

the creation of a site for the construction of housing for persons engaged in national defense

activities and their families at or near Forest Glen, in the County of Montgomery, State of

Maryland.”

Third, under Article 96, § 33, the United States accepted jurisdiction when the

judgment of condemnation of the Property was recorded in the Montgomery County land

records. Section 33 provided that the jurisdiction ceded under § 32 “shall not vest until the

United States shall have acquired the title to said lands by purchase, condemnation or

otherwise[.]” The Landlord asserts that the exclusive jurisdiction ceded by the State over

the Property vested in the United States with the recording of the judgment of

condemnation. According to the Landlord, the vesting of jurisdiction accomplished under

the terms of § 33 constituted the United States’ acceptance of jurisdiction as required by

40 U.S.C. § 255.

We agree with the Landlord that, under the terms of Article 96, §§ 31 and 32, the

State consented to the United States’ acquisition of the Property and ceded to the United

States all jurisdiction over the Property, except that the State reserved jurisdiction with

respect to the service of process. However, we disagree that the recording of the judgment

of condemnation indicated the United States’ acceptance of the jurisdiction ceded under §

32.

Recall that 40 U.S.C. § 255 provided that the United States could indicate the

required acceptance of jurisdiction in one of two ways. An authorized officer of the federal

government either could “fil[e] a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such

State” or the authorized officer could indicate acceptance of jurisdiction “in such other

manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such lands are situated.” 40

U.S.C. § 255 (1940).

The Landlord advises us in its Supplemental Brief that it has “found no public record

of a formal notice of acceptance sent to Maryland’s Governor relating to the Property[.]”

However, the Landlord contends that Article 96, § 33 prescribed one “such other manner”

by which the United States could indicate acceptance of ceded jurisdiction: the vesting of

title that would occur upon the United States “hav[ing] acquired the title to said lands by

purchase, condemnation or otherwise[.]”

We disagree. Sections 31 through 33 of Article 96 were enacted before Congress

amended 40 U.S.C. § 255 in 1940 and first required the federal government to indicate

acceptance of jurisdiction over federally acquired property. None of the relevant provisions

of Article 96 mentioned acceptance of jurisdiction by the United States when they were

enacted. There is no reason to believe that, at the time the General Assembly enacted § 33

and similar provisions in Article 96, it intended those statutes to provide a method for the

United States to indicate acceptance of jurisdiction. This is especially so given that prior to

the late 1930s, it was generally presumed that the United States accepted all jurisdiction

ceded by the states in conjunction with acquisitions of land within state boundaries. See

Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 528 (1885). Rather than addressing the

United States’ acceptance of jurisdiction, § 33 seems to have been a method to ensure that

the United States had clean title to property before the State’s cession of its jurisdiction

over the property would become effective.

Despite the amendment of 40 U.S.C. § 255 to require the United States to indicate

acceptance of jurisdiction, the General Assembly did not amend § 33. We decline to read

§ 33 as providing a method for the United States to indicate acceptance of jurisdiction,

where § 33 was not intended to do so when it was enacted, and the General Assembly made

no change to § 33’s language after Congress amended 40 U.S.C. § 255. The point of the

amendment to § 255 was that the federal government had to do something in addition to

obtaining title to land to make clear that it also wanted to acquire legislative jurisdiction

over that land. Obtaining legal title was something the federal government would do in the

normal course of acquiring a property, whether or not the government also wanted to

acquire jurisdiction over the property. Thus, obtaining legal title said nothing about the

acceptance of jurisdiction.

Other courts have interpreted statutes containing language similar to §§ 31-33 as we

do here. In Dekalb County, Georgia v. Henry C. Beck Co., the Fifth Circuit held that the

United States did not accept jurisdiction over land ceded to the United States by the State

of Georgia. 382 F.2d 992, 995 (5th Cir. 1967). The Fifth Circuit summarized the Georgia

statutes at issue:

By § 15-301 of the Code of Georgia of 1933 the State of Georgia has given

consent to federal acquisition of sites for ‘needful buildings.’ Sec. 15-302, as

amended, expressly cedes jurisdiction to the United States over lands so

acquired except that the State retains civil and criminal jurisdiction under

certain circumstances and jurisdiction over regulation of public utilities. Sec.

15-303 provides, ‘The jurisdiction hereby ceded shall not vest until the

United States shall have acquired the title to the said lands by purchase,

condemnation or otherwise * * *.’

Id. at 994-95 (footnotes omitted). Although § 15-302 expressly ceded jurisdiction to the

United States and § 15-303 referred to vesting of jurisdiction at the time the federal

government acquires title, the Fifth Circuit held that the United States had not accepted the

State’s cession of jurisdiction: “In this case the United States has taken no affirmative

action to accept jurisdiction over the land. It has done no more than take title by deed.” Id.

at 995.

New Jersey also has a similar series of statutes. N.J.S.A. 52:30-1 provides: “The

consent of this state is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of article one, section eight,

paragraph seventeen, of the constitution of the United States, to the acquisition by the

United States, by purchase, condemnation or otherwise, of any land within this state, for

the erection of dockyards, custom houses, courthouses, post offices or other needful

buildings.” The statute that immediately follows N.J.S.A. 52:30-1 provides in its entirety:

Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land so acquired by the United States

is hereby ceded to the United States for all purposes except the service of

process issued out of any of the courts of this state in any civil or criminal

proceeding.

Such jurisdiction shall not vest until the United States shall have actually

acquired ownership of said lands, and shall continue only so long as the

United States shall retain ownership of said lands.

N.J.S.A. 52:30-2. Interpreting N.J.S.A. 52:30-2, the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Appellate Division, held:

There is no law in New Jersey setting forth a procedure for acceptance of

federal jurisdiction in this context. The cession statute, N.J.S.A. 52:30-2,

does no more than cede jurisdiction to the United States for lands it acquires

in New Jersey, but neither it nor any other law prescribes an acceptance

procedure.… [T]he purpose of 40 U.S.C.A. § 255 was to avoid the federal

government having to assume unwanted jurisdiction granted by states’

cession acts. The federal statute added the new requirement that the United

States affirmatively accept what the state law was ceding to it. Absent formal

acceptance by either filing with the Governor or following a procedure

mandated by statute, N.J.S.A. 52:30-2 does not confer federal jurisdiction

over [the property at issue].

State v. Vogt, 776 A.2d 884, 890 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).

United States v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 980 (2d Cir. 1993), upon which the Landlord

relies, is distinguishable. There, the federal government’s compliance with a New York

law satisfied the requirement of indicating acceptance because New York required the

United States to take the affirmative step of filing particular documents after it obtained a

clear and complete title to the property at issue. See id. at 985. Under the New York law,

only after the United States complied with this requirement was the Governor of New York

authorized to “execute … a deed or release of the state ceding to the United States the

jurisdiction” over the property. Id. In contrast, Article 96, § 33 required only that the United

States acquire title without any additional act that would indicate its intent to accept

jurisdiction.

Although we do not base our disposition of the Landlord’s Enclave Clause argument

on the information contained in the Inventory Report, we note that the Inventory Report

supports the conclusion that the federal government did not accept exclusive jurisdiction

over the Property after acquiring title in 1941-42. As discussed above, the Inventory Report

indicates that the Property’s status as of 1962 was “Proprietorial Interest Only.” That

designation is reserved for “those instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired

some right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s

authority over the area.” 14

13F

The listing table in the Inventory Report also includes a column for “Citation to

Legislative Authority,” including “State Statute,” “Federal Law (Statutes-At-Large),” and

See chart on unnumbered page of the Inventory Report (seventh page of the

excerpt included in the Appendix).

“Acceptance or Recordation Date.” See App., Inventory Rep. at 343. All entries in this

column were left blank with respect to the Property. Id. The Inventory Report states that

“Acceptance or Recordation Date” represents the date “on which the Federal Government

accepted legislative jurisdiction. This date is called for in the case of any acquisition after

January 31, 1940, (Section 355, Revised Statutes U.S.) as well as acquisitions prior thereto

where recordation or other affirmative act was required by the applicable State Statute.” 1514F

The lack of evidence of any indication of the United States’ acceptance in 1941-42

of the ceded jurisdiction over the Property is consistent with a decision on the part of the

United States at that time to maintain only a proprietorial interest in the Property.

We presume that the United States has obtained and exercised legislative

jurisdiction over Glen Haven through the MHPI. 16 Any federal jurisdiction that exists over

15F

Glen Haven is not the product of the United States having acquired exclusive jurisdiction

over the Property in keeping with the Enclave Clause. 17 The Landlord produced no

16F

evidence that the United States has ever obtained exclusive jurisdiction over the Property.

See chart on unnumbered page of the Inventory Report (seventh page of the

excerpt included in the Appendix).

See note 6 above.

In the District Court, counsel for the Landlord did not mention the Supremacy

Clause or make any argument that could be construed as raising obstacle preemption as a

basis for Glen Haven’s exemption from Montgomery County’s licensure regulations. At

the hearing on appeal to the circuit court, counsel for the Landlord again did not make any

argument under the Supremacy Clause, but rather argued only preemption under the

Enclave Clause. Thus, unlike with respect to the Enclave Clause, the Landlord did not

attempt to prove in the lower courts that it was exempt from licensure due to obstacle

preemption. We did not grant review of the question the Landlord included in its petition

for certiorari concerning preemption of the County’s licensing laws under the Supremacy

Conclusion

The Landlord did not establish at trial or in this Court that the United States accepted

exclusive federal jurisdiction over the Property, as required by 40 U.S.C. § 255. Thus, we

cannot conclude that the Property is a federal “enclave” subject to the exclusive jurisdiction

of the United States. Because the Landlord did not establish that the Property is subject to

exclusive federal jurisdiction, it follows that the Landlord also failed to demonstrate that

Glen Haven is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States under the Enclave

Clause. This, in turn, means that: (1) the Landlord did not establish that the Enclave Clause

preempts Montgomery County’s licensure requirements as applied to Glen Haven’s rental

units; and (2) the Landlord did not meet its burden at trial to demonstrate by a

preponderance of the evidence that it is exempt from licensure. That being the case, the

District Court should have entered judgment in favor of Mr. Wynn. Although our reasoning

differs from that of the circuit court, we affirm its judgment.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT FOR MONTGOMERY

COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO

BE PAID BY PETITIONER/CROSSRESPONDENT.

Clause. For this reason, although the parties discussed obstacle preemption in their briefs,

we do not decide whether the MHPI preempts Montgomery County’s licensure regulations

as applied to Glen Haven.

· . 76606

�

CON T·E,N TS

Introduction: Page

1. Authority ------------------------------------- 1

2. Background------------------------------------ 1

3. Objectives ---------------------------- ------- 2

4. Source of Data-------------------------------- 4

5. Scope---- ------------------------------------- 4

6. Areas not Covered----------------------------- 4

7. Definitions-------------------�--------------- 5

8. Public Domain------------------ --------------- 5

General Services Administration Circular No. 275------- 7

Jurisdictional status of Federal land areas by States.

(See reverse side forState page numbers)---------Table 1. Jurisdictional status of Federal land areas in

United States by agency and bureau---------------- 893

Table 2. Jurisdictional status of Federal land areas in

United States by State and total acreage of each

State--------- -----------�--------��---- -------�- 895

Table 3. Jurisdictional status of Federal land areas in

United States by State and agency �---------- ----- 897

' .•

-? STATE PAGE NUMBERS

STATE PAGE STATE PAGE

Alabama-------------- 19 Montana ------------ 447

Alaska --------------- 35 Nebraska ----------- 465

Arizona -------------- 47 Nevada ------------- 479

Arkansas ------------- 59 New Hampshire ------ 487

California ----------- 75 New Jersey --------- 493

Colorado ------------- 117 New Mexico --------- 507

Connecticut ---------- 131 New York ----------- 521

Delaware ------------- 139

North Carolina ----- 557

Florida -------- ------ 145

North Dakota ------- 579

Georgia -------------- 167. Ohio- -----------�-- - 593

Hawaii --------------- 191 Oklahoma----------- 623

Idaho ---------------- 197 Oregon ------------- 641

Illinois ------------- 209 Pennsylvania ------- 663

Indiana ------�_. ______ 237 Rhode Island --------- 689

Iowa -------------- --- 257 South Carolina ----- 695

Kansas --------------- 275 South Dakota ------- 707

Kentucky ------------- 291 Tennessee ---------- 7 19

Louisiana ------------ 309 Texas -------------- 741

Maine ---------------- 325 Utah --------------- 783

Maryland :-:..---•-'•-�- --- . 337 . Vermont ------------- 795

Massachusetts --------- · 351 Virginia.�---�------ 8 01

Michigan ------------- 367 Washington --------- 825

Minnesota ------------ 393 West Virginia ------ 853

Mississippi ---------- 411 Wisconsin ---------- 865

Missouri ------------- 427 Wyoming·------------ 883

.;;,, ' I

llOA«

u KEY

.. .,..

40 TO

STATE

. ..,,

CODES

�'

";�

ALASKA

HAWAII s,(), so

STATE CODE STATE CODE STATE CODE

Alabama 01 Kentucky 16 North Dakota 33

Alaska 50 Louisiana 17 Ohio 34

Arizona 02 Maine 18 Oklahoma 35

Arkansas 03 Maryland 19 Oregon 36

California 04 Massachusetts 20 Pennsylvania 37

Colorado 05 Michigan 21 Rhode Island 38

Connecticut 06 Minnesota 22 South Carolina 39

Delaware 07 Mississippi 23 South Dakota 40

District of Columbia 08 Missouri 24 Tennessee 41

Florida 09 Montana 25 Texas 42

Georgia 10 Nebraska 26 Utah 43

Hawaii 51 Nevada 27 Vermont 44

Idaho 11 New Hampshire 28 Virginia 45

Illinois 12 New Jersey 29 Washington 46

Indiana 13 New Mexico 30 West Virginia 47

Iowa New York 31 Wisconsin

-14 48

Kansas 15 North Ca,rolina 32 Wyoming 49

-Proper ties are listed by state, county, and holding agency.

Street addresses are given but cities are identified by code only.

I �i ty na�es _mp.y be determined from the- GSA pubi-i·c ati·on·"Ge·o-grapliicar·

I· Location Codes. 11 A supplement at the end of each state shows the

counties covered by each multi-county installation included in the

listing, but no breakdown of acreage by county 1s given • .,

I i I

' I

LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES

CODES USED IN TYPE OF JURISDICTION AND CITATION TO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY COLUMNS

CODE TYPE OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION CITATION TO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

l Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied when For land areas reported under "Exclusive," "Concurrent,"

the Federal Government possesses, by whichever method ac or "Partial" legislative jurisdiction, a general or

quired, all of the authority of the State, and in which the specific State statute or Federal law (Statutes-at-Law)

State concerned baa not reserved to itself the right to is cited.

exercise any of the authority concurrently with the United

States except the right to serve civil or criminal process in State Statute,

the area for activities which occurred outside the area. Citations to State laws are in terms of session statutes

regardless of whether or not they have been codified,

2 Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied in Each citation shows: (1) the year of enactment of the

those instances wherein in granting to the United States cited statute; (2) the page number of the volume of

authority which would otherwise aD10unt to exclusive legislative State laws; and (3) the chapter (or equivalent) number of

jurisdiction over an area, the State concerned has reserved to the State law.

itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the United

States, all of the same authority. Federal Law (Statutes-At-Large)

Citations to Federal laws are shown in cases where

3 Partial Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied in legislative jurisdiction was obtained by a reservation in

those instances wherein the Federal Government has been the enabling act authorizing Statehood. These citations

granted for exercise by it over an area in a State certain show volumes and page numbers of the Statutes at Large,

of the State's authority, but where the State concerned has

reserved to itself the right to exercise, by itself or Acceptance or Recordation Date,

concurrently with the United States, other authority This date represents the month, day, and year on which

constituting more than merely the right to serve civil or the Federal Government accepted legislative jurisdiction.

criminal process in the area (e,g., the right to tax This date is called for in the case of any acquisition

private property). after January 31, 1940, (Section 355, Revised Statutes

U.S.) as well as acquisitions prior thereto where

4 Proprietorial Interest Only, This term is applied to those recordation or other affirmative act was required by

instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired some the a licable State Statute.

right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained

any measure of the State's authority over the area. In

applying this definition, recognition should be given to

the fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions

and authority under various provisions of the Constitution, N (negligible) An "N" shown in the Land Area columns

has many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary indicates less than one tenth (0.1) of an

landholders with respect to areas in which it acquires an acre.

interest, and of the further fact that all its properties R (reference) An "R" shown in the State Statute columns

and functions are held or performed in a governmental_ indicates that additional unpublished data

rather than a proprietary capacity. is· on file in the Central Office of GSA,

x_____ An "X" shown in the Jurisdictional Code

5 Unknown. Land will be reported under this category when columns and/or the Federal Law columns

there is no data or record to guide the reporting holding indicates that the propriety of the code

agency, and/or the· .law cited is considered doubtful

EXPLANATION:

The number (1 thro�gh 5) appearing in the Jurisdic �

tional Code column indicates the legislative jurisdiction

of the acreage listed on the same line in the Land columns. These listings have been carefully prepared and checked, but

For example, a number 1 indicates exclusive jurisdiction perfection cannot be assured. Users are asked to call to the

by the Federal Government over the area shown in the Land attention of the Office ot Finance and Administration, General

col�s on the same line, Services Administration, Washington 25, D,C,, necessary

corrections as well as suggestions for alteration in the

content or format of the list,

• INVENTORY REPORT ON JURISDICTIONAL

STATUS OF FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE

STATES

1. Authority

This "Inventory Report on Jurisdictional St a tus of Federal areas

within the St a tes," as o_f J'une 30, 1962, is the.second compre_hensive

inventory of its nature ever undert aken. It has been prepa red and

issued by General Services Administration pursua nt to the a uthority contained in the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949, a s amended.

2. Ba ckground

JO /

The compilation of the original inve_IJ,J;.o.qr_as-G-f-June 304 �1�9�57� �•----constituted a step tow ard fulfilling the hope expressed by the

:-:-President in a letter da ted April 27, 1956, to the Attorney

•·

Gener a l, that General Services Administra tion establish .a --central

source of informa tion concerning the legisla tive jurisdictional

st a tus of Federal properties. __

An Inter-agency Committee consisting of representatives Qf

Department of Justice, Bure a u of the Budget, and General Services

Administration w as formed to maint ain a continuing and concerted

interest in the progress made by Federal agencies in adjusting

the status of their properties. This Committee request�d tha

Administrator of General Services to compile a second inventory

on the Jurisdictiona l Bta tus of Federal area s within the States,

as of June 30, 1962. The Committee deEi!!!ed the new inventory

necessary in order to refine legal dete.rmin a dons in ehe originai-inventory, a s of June 30, 1957, a nd, further to include da ta on

Federa l holdings in the new States of Alaska and Ha wa ii a s well

a s new acquisitions in the other States.

Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution provides

that the Congress shall have powerTo exercise exclusive Legisl a tion in all Cases Whatsoever,

over such District (not exceeding ten Miles squ a re) as may,

by Cession of pa rticular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,

become the Seat of the Government of the United States, a nd to

exercise like Authority over a ll Places purchased by the ConAent

·•

of the Legisla ture of the St a te in which the Same shall be 1 for

the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Ya rds, and other

needful Buildings; (Emphasis added.)

It is well known that under the first portion of this constitutional provision the Federal Government exercises with respect

to the District of Columbia all those powers - judicial, executive, and legislative - which under our Federal-State system of

government are ordinarily reserved to the States. It is not so

well known that under the second portion of this constitutional

provision--the portion that has been emphasized above--the

Federal Goverrunent has acquired "like Authority" with respect

to numerous other areas within the geographical confines of the

States and with respect the residents of such areas. These

other areas--sometimes called "enclaves"--are, in effect, Federal islands surrounded by State territory. To the extent that

jurisdiction thereover has been surrendered to, and accepted by,

the Federal Government, the States are deprived of the ordinary

authority of a State and cannot, with respect to such Federal

enclaves or to their inhabitants, exercise usual State functions.

But, while the Congress has legislated complete civil and

criminal codes for the District of Columbia and provided the

local machinery necessary for the administration and enforcement

of those codes, it has legislated little, and provided little by

way of local governmental machinery, for such Federal enclaves or

for their inhabitants.

•

Over the years, the peculiar legal status of the Federal enclaves

has given rise to many serious problems. The significance of

those problems is being magnified as the impact of governmental

action on the individual citizen continues to mount. In the

past, such proqJems were handled on a case-to-case basis, In

December of 1954, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General and with the sponsorship of the President and the Cabinet,

an Interdepartmental Committee was formed to study the entire

subject of legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government

over areas within the States and to make recommendations thereon.

The extension of the Federal Govermnent's jurisdiction over

lands within the States and over the residents of such lands was

slowed down with the removal on February 1, 1940, of the Federal statutory requirement (originally enacted in 1841) that, in

the case of purchased land, the consent of the State to such

purchase be secured prior to construction of any Federal

building thereon. The acquisition of jurisdiction by the Federal Government was further slowed down with respect to newly

acquired lands by the findings of the above mentioned Committee.

However, there does not now exist any administrative machinery

for canceling the legislative jurisdiction previously acquired

by the Federal Government from the several states.

3. Objectives

•

The Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction

over Federal Areas within the States made the following conclusions and recommendations:

-· 1. In the usual case there is an increasing preponderance

of disadvantages over advantages as there increases the

degree of legislative jurisdiction vested in the United

States;

2. With respect to the large bulk of federally owned or

operated real property in the several States and outside

of the District of Columbia it is desirable that the Federal Government not receive, or retain, any measure whatever of legislative jurisdiction, but that it hold the

installations and areas in a proprietorial interest status

only, with legislative jurisdiction remaining in the several

States;

3. It is desirable that in the usual case the Federal Government receive or retain concurrent legislative jurisdiction with respect to Federal installations and areas on

which it is necessary that the Federal Government render law

enforcement services of a character ordinarily rendered by a

State or local government. These installations and areas

consist of those which, because of their great size, large

population, or remote location, or because of peculiar

-requirement based on their use, are beyond the capacity of

the State or local government to service. The Committee

suggests that even in some such instances the receipt or

retention by the Federal Government of concurrent legislative jurisdiction can, and in such instances should, be

avoided; and

4. In any instances where an agency may determine the

existence of a requirement with respect to a particular

installation or area of a legislative jurisdictional status

with a measure of exclusivity of jurisdiction in the Federal Government, it would be desirable that the Federal

Government in any event not receive or retain with respect

to the installation or area any part of the State's jurisdiction with respect to taxation, marriage, divorce,

annulment, adoption, commitment of the mentally incompetent,

and descent and distribution of property, that the State have

concurrent power on such installation or area to enforce the

criminal law, that the State also have the power to execute

on the installation or area any civil or criminal process,

and that residents of such installation or area not be

deprived of any civil or political rights.

These recommendations were concurred in by the President in a

letter to the Attorney General dated April 27, 1956.

The principal objective of preparing this inventory is to provide

a central source of information concerning the legislative status

of Federal properties.

Another objective is that of providing a means for observing the

progress made by all Federal agencies in adjusting the status of

their properties in conformity with the recommendations of the

above mentioned Interdepartmental Committee. This is in keeping

with the President's letter of April 27, 1956, asking that

General Services Administration, with the Bureau of the Budget,

and the Department of Justice, maintain a continuing and concerted interest in such progress.

4. Source of Data

This inventory of jurisdictional status is based upon the determination of status by the various Federal agencies with respect to

the areas under their respective control. These agency determinations of jurisdictional status were reported to GSA pursuant

to General Services Administration Circular No. 2·75, dated July 18,

1962, copy of which follows. Data with regard to the jurisdictional

status of Federal land were obtained by the agencies, principally

from title papers and other basic documents. The determinations are

subject to change through the revaluation of information now on hand

or upon the basis of additional facts that may become known.

5. Scope

This inventory report shows the legislative jurisdictional status

as of June 30, 1962, of lands located in each of the 50 States, in

which title is vested in the Federal Government or in wholly owned

Government corporations. It covers, with respect to those 50 States,

the same land areas that are covered by the "Inventory Report of Real

Property owned by the United States Throughout the World," as of the

same date. Department of Defense (military functions) reported only

swmnary data for its land holdings in Alaska and Hawaii.

6. Areas Not Covered

The whole of the area now constituting the District of Columbia is

under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It embraces,

except for certain adjustments, the area that was ceded by the State

of Maryland to the Federal Government for the purpose of establishing the seat of the Government and accepted by the Federal

Government in 1790. The area that was ceded by the State of Virginia

for that purpose and likewise accepted was retroceded to that State

in 1846. These two areas together approximated the ten miles square

that is referred to in the first portion of article I, section 8,

clause 17, of the Constitution. However, the District of Columbia,

as the seat of the Government, involves special considerations not

generally applicable to other Federal areas. Accordingly, the

above mentioned Interdepartmental Committee restricted its report

to those areas that are covered by the "like Authority" and did

not deal with the District of Columbia. The same considerations

have led to the exclusion of the District of Columbia from this

report.

- Inasmuch as the legislative jurisdiction involved in this

report concerns the authority of the .Federal Government in

relation to that of a State� this report does not deal with

property in the territories or possessions, or in the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

7. Definitions

Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution

speaks only of exclusive jurisdiction or - to use the

exact language - the power to exercise "exclusive Legislation." In the absence of a uniform code of Federal laws

for areas to which the Federal Government has acquired such

exclusive jurisdiction, the operation of the jurisdiction

transferred to the Federal Government with respect to Federal enclaves and their inhabitants varies as between States

and even as between areas acquired at different times within

a single State. Moreover, the Constitution has been interpreted as permitting the transfer of jurisdiction to the United

States to be subject to a �ontinuing jurisdiction of the State

either in all, or in certain limited 1 aspects. In addition,

the Federal Government has enacted various statutes to permit

the States in certain cases to exercise limited jurisdiction

•

over Federal enclaves and their residents. These factors

have led to an almost infinite variety of jurisdictional

situations •

For statistical purposes, Federal areas are divided into four

categories or, where complete information is lacking, are

listed as "unknown." The four categories, and their definitions, are those shown in GSA Circular No. 275 which follows.

It should be borne in mind that, while those definitions are

based upon judicial decisions and administrative applications,

they do not necessarily coincide with the meanings of the same

terms as they are used in particular Federal and State statutes.

8. Public Domain

Unlike the inventory of federally owned real property, this

inventory has not been compiled on the basis of whether the land

is a part of the public domain or is after-acquired land.

Nevertheless, an explanation of the special status of public

domain lands is warranted. The term "public domain," as it

applies to land within a State, refers to those lands which

were acquired by the United States prior to the creation of

the State and which are still retained by the United States,

such as lands acquired by the Federal Government by virtue of

the Louisiana Purchase. The term has no application to any

-land in the original 13 states, or in Texas, which was an

independent State prior to its admission to the Union, and at

present has only limited application to land in the States

created out of the territory that belonged to the original 13

States. "Public domain lands" are to be differentiated from

so-called "after-acquired lands," which exist in every State.

Much of what was originally public domain is now in private

ownership through operation of the homestead laws and other

similar laws. Other portions of the public domain have been

withdrawn or reserved for military or other public uses.

A State statute providing the Constitutional consent to the

purchase of lands by the United States (as opposed to a status

directly ceding jurisdiction to the United States) would not

operate to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over

public domain lands inasmuch as the public domain, by definition, does not embrace land that has been "purchased by the

Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall

be." Moreover, in only a few States, such as Arizona, Nevada

and Utah, do the direct session statutes of general application

provide for exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over

public domain land that is reserved for public uses. Also,

in only a few cases (such as that.of Yellowstone National

Park) has exclusive jurisdiction for the United States been

reserved in the enabling Act by which the State was created.

As indicated above, the statistical aspects of this report do

not distinguish between public domain lands and after-acquired

lands,

- GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Washington 25, D. C.

July 18, 1962

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CIRCULAR NO. 275

TO: Heads of Federal Agencies

SUBJECT: Inventory of Legislative Jurisdiction

Over Federal Areas Within the States

1. Purpose. This circular prescribes (a) reports necessary for the

compilation of an inventory of the legislative jurisdiction over

Federal areas within the States, as of June 30, 1962; and (b) forms

with detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of

these inventory reports to the General Services Administration by the

reporting agencies.

2. Background. In conformance with the President's request of April 27,

-1956, published in Part I of the Report of the Interdepartmental

Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the

States, an inventory showing the legislative jurisdictional status of

each Federal installation was compiled, as of June 30, 1957, and a

summary inventory report prepared and presented to the President on

November 10, 1959. The summary inventory report was published and

released to the public December 2, 1959.

An interagency committee consisting of representatives of Department

of Justice, Bureau of the Budget, and General Services Administration

was formed to maintain a continuing and concerted interest in �he

progress made by Federal agencies in adjusting the status of their

properties. This committee requested the Administrator of General

Services to compile a current inventory on the Jurisdictional Status

of Federal Areas Within the States, as of June 30, 1962. The committee

deems the new inventory necessary in order to refine legal determinations

in the original inventory and, further, to include data on new Federal

landholdings and data on the newest States, Alaska and Hawaii.

3. Reporting Agency. A reporting agency, for purposes of this inventory,

is the same as that used for the inventory of real property owned by

the United States Government, as defined in GSA Reg. 2-XI-201.01,

dated November 8, 1960.

- 7

4. Coverage. The inventory prescribed by this circular shall cover all

land located in each of the States , title to which is vested in the

United States or in wholly owned Government corporations. The coverage

of land for this inventory shall be identical with the inventory of

-real property owned by the United States, for land in the United States,

as prescribed in GSA Reg. 2-XI-201.00 dated November 8, 1960, except

that it shall omit land located in the District of Columbia and land

held in trust for others.

5. Reports to be Submitted. Each reporting agency shall prepare, in

accordance with instructions in attachment lA, and submit to the

General Services Administration, a separate report on GSA Form 1166B,

Report of Legislative Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States

(attachment 1) , for each federally owned installation in the United

States, as of June 30, 1962, (excluding those in the District of

Columbia and those held in trust for others).

Each reporting agency shall also prepare in accordance with instructions

in attachment 2A, and submit to the General Services Administration for

each bureau or other major organizational unit, a report on GSA Form

1209B, Summary Report - Legislative Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas

Within the States (attachment 2). GSA Form 1209B shall also be used

-for reporting summary data on the nature and number of nonfederally

owned lands over which the Federal Government has any legislative

jurisdiction. However, nonfederally owned lands in national parks

or forests or other similar areas over which the Federal Government

has acquired no special jurisdiction from the States shall not be

included.

An original and two copies of each report shall be submitted to the

General Services Administration, Office of Finance and Administration,

Accounting and Reports Management Division, General Services Building,

Washington 25, D. C., not later than January 1, 1963.

6. Optional Reporting Method. Reporting agencies which have electrical

accounting machine equipment may make arrangements with the General

Services Administration, Office of Financial Management, to furnish

detailed machine listings, together with the supporting punch cards,

in lieu of GSA Forms 1166B. However, GSA Forms 1209B shall be

submitted as prescribed in section 5, above.

7. Supplies of Forms. The June 30, 1962,revision of GSA Forms 1166B and

1209B may be obtained after August 1, 1962, from:

-- General Services Administration Region 3

Office of Regional Finance and Administration

Reproduction and Distribution Division

General Services Regional Office Building

Washington 25, D. c.

8. Agency Liaison. The agency liaison representatives on real property

inventories, designated pursuant to GSA Reg. 2-XI-101.06, dated

November 8, 1960, shall also serve for purposes of this inventory. If

desired, a special agency representative may be designated for purposes

of this inventory of legislative jurisdiction over land areas.

When an agency designates a special representative for this inventory,

it shall be his responsibility to coordinate all reports with the

regular real property liaison representative. The General Services

Administration, Office of Finance and Administration, Accounting and

Reports Management Division, General Services Building, Washington 25,

D. c., shall be advised in writing of the names of all such special

liaison representatives or any changes in such designations.

9. Inquiries. For additional information regarding the contents of this

circular or any questions or problems relating thereto, agency representatives may communicate with the General Services Administration,

•

Office of Finance and Administration, Accounting and Reports Management Division, Washington 25, D. C., telephone: Government dial

code 183, (EXecutive 3-4900), extension 4131 •

BERNARD L. BOUTIN

.Administrator

-Attachments

GSA WASH DC &3• IOZZ

Attachment l

GSA Circular No. 275

GENERAL SERVICES ADMIMISTRATIOM FORM APPROVED 1. REPORT AS OF

BUDGET BUREAU NO. 29-S202

REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER APPROVAL EXPIRES DEC. 31. 1963 June 30, 1962

FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES 2. AGENCY CONTROL NO. 3. GSA CONTROL NO.

(For Instructions see GSA Circular Ho. 275J

4. NAME OF INSTALLATION (Abbrevia&e u,l.,,. neces.sa,y.., as not lo.,,._ s. REPORTING AGENCY

ceed 23 type spa,:es)

&. BUREAU OR OTHER MAJOR ORGANIZATIPN

LOCATION

7. STATE 8 • CITY OR TOWN

I•• COUNTY 10. STREET ADDRESS. RFD NO. OR OTHER LOCAL DESIGNATION (Abbreviale

►

tuAen necessary .so as nos 10 esceed 23 type spaces)

STATE lCITY jCOUNTY

GEOGRAPHICAL

COOE

LAND AREAS

11. TYPE OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION DATE(S) OF AREA

CODE DESCRIPTION

LIINO ACWISITION (Acre. to

(Year(s) only) neoresl ienm}

IA) (Bl 12 13

1 EXCLUSIVE ....................................................

2 CONCURRENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

� PART I AL . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-PROPRIETORIAL INTEREST ONLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 UNKNOWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TOTAL LAND AREA *

�

• Musi agree wilh land area for ,his inslalla&ion shown in she June 30. 1962 Invemory of Real Properly Ouned by she Uniled Ssa&es.

14. STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE (For ea,:h

above, cile Che specific Sea&e ,..d/or F

'll.e,:/.

lecisla&i11e /urisdielion reported in block 13,

slalllle ander 111Aic:h Che le,risla&ive j11risdie•

IS. DATEISI OF LETTERISI OF ACCEPTANCE OR

'OTHER ACTIONS TRANSFERING LEGISLATIVE

lion over she lad was received.) JURISDlCTI ON TO THE FEDERAL GOYERINENT

STATE STATUTE FEDERAL LAW (S1a&,,,es-al·La1ceJ

CODE YEAR OF MONTH DAY YEAR

PAGE NO. CHAPTER NO. ,VOLUME NO. PAGE NO.

ENACTMENT

16. REMARKS (U"" reverse if more space is required)

-I7. PREPARED BY (Typed name ,nd Side) 18. SIGNATURE u. DATE

- Attachment 1A

GSA Circular No. 275

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF GSA FORM 1166B,

REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES

A. General Instructions.

1. Preparation of Reports. GSA Form 1166B, Report of Legislative

Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, shall be

prepared by all reporting agencies, as of June 30, 1962, for all

installations which include land in the United States, except

for real properties located in the District of Columbia and those

held in trust. The coverage of land areas for this inventory shall

be identical with the inventory of real property owned by the

United States as prescribed in GSA Reg. 2-XI-201.00, dated November 8,

1960, except for the exclusions noted above.

2. Reporting Agency. For purposes of this inventory a reporting

agency shall be the same as that prescribed for the Annual Report

of Real Property Owned by the United States in GSA Reg. 2-XI-201.01,

dated November 8, 1960.

B. Specific Instructions for Preparation of GSA Forms 1166B.

1. Agency and Property Identification.

Blocks 2 Entries in these blocks shall be identical with the

thru 10. respective identification data for the installation,

as reported in the June 30, 1962, Inventory of Real

Property Owned by the United States.

If space under Block 9, is insufficient to record

all county names applicable to multiple county installations, complete the list of counties under

Remarks, Block 16, or on the reverse of the form.

2. Land Areas - Type of Legislative Jurisdiction.

Block 11. Type of Jurisdiction. Code 2 and Description. All

land areas in each installation shall be reported,

as applicable, for each type of legislative

jurisdiction described below. When portions of an

installation are held in more than one status, the

acreage held in each status shall be shown as

separate line entries on the report for the installation.

- 11

Code Description.

1. Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is

applied when the Federal Government possesses, by

-whichever method acquired, all of the authority of

the State, and in which the State concerned has not

reserved to itself the right to exercise any of the

authority concurrently with the United States except

the right to serve civil or criminal process in the

area for activities which occurred outside the area.

2. Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is

applied in those instances wherein in granting to

the United States authority which would otherwise

amount to exclusive legislative jurisdiction over

an area, the State concerned has reserved to itself

the right to exercise, concurrently with the United

States, all of the samaauthority.

3. Partial Legislative Jurisdiction. This term is applied

in those instances wherein the Federal Government has

been granted for exercise by it over an area in a State

certain of the State's authority, but where the State

concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise,

by itself or concurrently with the United States,

other authority constituting more than merely the

right to serve civil or criminal process in the area

(e.g., the right to tax private property).

4. Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to

those instances wherein the Federal Government has

acquired some right of title to an area in a State

but has not obtained any measure of the State's

authority over the area. In applying this definition,

recognition should be given to the fact that the United

States, by virtue of its functi�ns and authority under

various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers

and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders

with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest,

and of the further fact that all its properties and

functions are held or performed in a governmental

rather than a proprietary capacity.

5. Unknown. Land will be reported under this category when

there is no data or record to guide the reporting agency.

-- Block 12. Date(s) of Land Acquisition. Enter the year(s)

in which the land was originally acquired by the

Federal Government for each type of legislative

jurisdiction set forth in Block 11. For public

domain land withdrawals, show the year of the

Executive order or the public land order as the

year of acquisition. If various portions were

acquired in different years, indicate the range

of years: e.g., 1910-1921.

Block 13. Land-Area. For each type of legislative

jurisdiction set forth in Block 11, enter the

total area of the land to the nearest tenth of

an acre. The land area reported shall be the

total area of the installation without regard

to "urban" and "rural" classifications. If

acreage to be reported is a whole number,

enter "0" to the right of the decimal point;

e.g., 10.0. If acreage to be reported is less

than a whole number, enter "0" to the left of

the decimal point; e.g., 0.4. If acreage to

be reported is less than 0.1 of an acre, enter

the letter "N'' (negligible).

The total acreage reported in Block 13 in this

report must be identical with the total of

urban and rural land reported for the installation

in the June 30, 1962, Inventory of Real Property

Owned by the United States.

3. State or Federal Statute. Letter of Acceptance and Remarks.

Block 14. Type of Jurisdiction by Code. Identify by code

description, using the same code numbers shown

in Block 11 (A), each type of legislative

jurisdiction reported in Block 13. The proper

code shall be used for each statute cited.

State or Federal Statute. For acreage reported

under "Exclusive," "Concurrent," or "Partial"

legislative jurisdiction in Block 13, cite the

general or specific State statute under which

each legislative jurisdiction over land was

received. Citations to State laws shall be in

terms of the session statute regardless of whether

or not it has been codified. The citation shall

be entered as prescribed under (a) below.

- 13

Cite the Federal statute, where appropriate, in

those cases where legislative jurisdiction was' -obtained by a reservation in the enabling act

authorizing statehood. Citations to Federal

laws shall be in terms of Statutes-at-Large as

prescribed in (b) below. Federal laws retroceding

jurisdiction should be cited in Block 16 and

s�ould be in the f�rm prescribed in (b} below.

(a) State Statute. Enter a complete citation,

using a maximum of twelve digits, for the

applicable State session statute (not the

codified form) as follows:

(1) Year of Enactment. Enter the year of

enaction of the cited statute. Use four

digits; e.g., 1911.

(2) Page Number. Enter the page number of

the volume of State laws containing the

statute cited. Use four digits; e.g.,0438.

(3) Chapter Number. Enter as appropriate

using four digits; e.g., 0029.

(b) Federal Law (Statutes-at-Large). Enter as

appropriate complete citation to Statutes-at- A

Large for the-Federal law to be cited. Use W

a maximum of six digits as follows:

(1) Volume Number. Enter the volume number

of Statutes-at-Large containing the cited

law. Use two digits; e.g., 13.

(2) Page Number. Enter the page number of

the volume where the statute is found. Use

four digits; e.g., 2894.

In the event there is a question as to the

accuracy of the State or Federal statute

cited in Block 14, the reporting agency is

requested to note this doubt in Block 16,

"Remarks. 11

-- Block 15. Date{s) of Letter{s) of Acceptance or Other

Actions Transferring Legislative Jurisdiction.

Fo'r acreage reported under "Exclusive!'

"Concurrent," or "Partial" legislative

jurisdiction in Block 13, enter the date the

Federal Government accepted the legislative

jurisdiction. Enter in the appropriate columns

for each type of legislative jurisdiction a

complete citation, using eight digits, for the

month, day, and year, for the letter or letters

of acceptance, or other action (e.g., date of

filing with Secretary of State) transferring

jurisdiction; e.g., 06-15-1910 for June 15, 1910.

Block 16. Remarks. The remarks block should be used to

show: (1) any discrepancies between this report

and the June 30, 1962,"owned" real property report

regarding acquisition dates or total acreage;

(2) Federal statutes when the legislative

jurisdiction, previously obtained, has been

retroceded (see Block (14)); and (3) counnents

-regarding State statutes or Federal law if there

is doubt as to propriety; and other remarks

which will be beneficial in clarifying the report

or in expanding any entries beyond the space

provided in the applicable block. Continuations

of remarks may be entered on the reverse of the

form.

4. Signature and Date

Block 17. Prepared by: Type in the name and title of

the official responsible for the preparation of

this report.

Block 18. Signature: The official designated in Block 17

shall sign his name in this block.

Block 19. �: . Enter date on which the report was prepared.

- 15

-Attachment 2

GSA Circular No. 275

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FORM APPROVED

BUDGET BUREAU NO. 29. 6203

'· S�ARY REPORT AS OF

June JJ, 1962

SUMMARY REPORT APPROVAL EXPIRES DEC. 31,

2. REPORTING AGENCY

1963

LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER

FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES 3. BUREAU OR OTHER MAJOR ORGANIZATION

(For Instructions see GSA Circulor Ho. 27S)

4. TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTS SUMMAR I ZED (Enter total number of individual installation reports (GSA Form 11668) for federally-owned properties submitted by the reporting bureau) ►

SUMMARY OF LAND AREAS

5. TYPE OF LEG I SLA Tl VE JURISDICTICJII

COOE DESCRIPTION

6. AREA (Acres to

nearest tenth)

(A) (B)

1 EXCLUSIVE e • • • • e I I • • • • I • 4 • • • I • • e • 0 • t • It I I I I I I I I I I I I o • • I • I I I I • o o • I • I • I I I I

2 CONCURRENT I I I • I • I • I I I I I • I I • • • I • I I I • I I I O I I I I O I I I O O I I I I I I I I I e I I I I I e I I I I

3 PART! AL • I I I o I I I • I I I I • o I I I I • I I I I • I I • I I e I • I • e I I • e e I e I I o • e I • I o o I I I I I I I ,t I

4 PROPRIETORIAL INTEREST ONLY . . . . . . . . . •· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 UNKNOWN ..............................................................

. -TOTAL LAND AREA* ►

-..,, 6, above, must be IAe sum of columA 13 for tAe reports (CSA Form l l66Bfsummarized.

Sl.ATI VE JURISDICTION OVER NONFEDERALL Y 0WNED LAND AREAS (Indicate IAe nature and number of non/ederally-owned lands controlled by

reporting bureau over which the Federal Go11ernment hos ei:clu.sive, concurrent or partial legislative jW'iscliciion. Nonfetlerally-owned IGAtls

in which 1hr Frtleral Government Aas only a proprietorial inler.esl shall nol be reported.)

lo CHANGES IN LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION SINCE JUNE 30. 1957

•

-0, PREPARED BY (Typed r>arne and title) 10. SIGNATURE 11. DATE

- Attachment 2A

GSA Circular No. 275

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF GSA FORM 1209B

SUMMARY REPORT-LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES

A. General Instructions. This "Summary Report - Legislative Jurisdiction

Over Federal Areas Within the States" shall be prepared on GSA Form

1209B by each reporting agency for each bureau or other major

organizational unit.

B. Specific Instructions.·

1. Agency and Bureau Identification

Block 2. Reporting Agency. Enter in this block the name

of the reporting agency, that is, the controlling

department, coIIDnission, administration, or authority.

For example, Department of CoIIDnerce� Atomic Energy

Conunission, Veterans Administration,

·· · or Tennessee

•

Valley. Authority.

Block 3. Bureau or Other Major Organization. Enter in this

block the name of the_bureau, or comparable major

organizational unit, within the reporting agacy.

For example, National Bureau of Standards (Connnerce),

or Bureau of Land Management (Interior).,

2. Summary Data

Block 4. Enter the total number of individual installation

reports on GSA Forms 1166B which are summarized on

GSA Form 12O9B.

Blocks 5 & 6. For each type of legislative jurisdiction listed

in Block 5, enter in Block 6 the total acreage

reported on GSA Forms 1166B for all installations

of the bureau or major organizational unit for

which this report is submitted.

3. Legislative Jurisdic·tion Over Nonfederally Owned Land Areas

Block 7. Indicate the nature and number of nonfederally

owned lands controlled by the reporting bureau or

major organizational unit over which the Federal

Government has legislative jurisdiction. Examples

- 17

of such lands are private in-holdings in national

parks and land leased to the Federal Government.

Nonfederally owned lands in which the Federal

Government has only a proprietorial interest

-shall not be reported.

4. Changes in Legislative Jurisdiction Since June 30 2 1957

Block 8. Identify by GSA control number all installations where the legislative jurisdiction

has, in fact; changed since June 30, 1957.

Give the reason for the change. Also, similarly

identify all installations acquired since

June 30, 1957, which carry legislative jurisdiction other than proprietorial interest.

Do not list installations when the changes in

classification from the June 30, 195i inventory

merely reflect refinements in data.

5. Signature and Date

Block 9. Prepared by: Type in the name and title of

•

the official responsible for the preparation

of this report.

Block 10. Signature: The official designated in Block 9

shall sign his name in this block.

Block 11. Date: Enter the date on which the report was

signed.

-• •

COUNTY CODES

•

CODES

NAME STATE Cot.llTY

MARYLAND 19

INDEPENDENT CITY 000

ALLEGAN Y 001

ANNE ARUNDEL 003

BALTIMORE 005

CALVERT 009

CAROLIN E 011

CARROLL 013

CECIL 015

CHARLES 017

DORCHESTER 019

FREDERICK 021

GARRETT 023

HARFORD 025

HOWARD 021

KENT 029

MONTGOMERY 031

PRINCE GEORGF.5 033

QUEEN ANNES 035

ST MARYS 037

SOMERSET 039

TALBOT 041

WASHINGTON 043

WICOMICO 045

WORCESTER 047

-JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS

i� ··- �--..-LOc•no,. o•, rs •c ovuu:o LA.. 0 AltCA CIT ... llO .. 10 Ll!GISLATIYIIC AUTHO0UT•

COM11t0L ..0

., ... ,r 11!1ATUTIII HC•-•�- ...,.

�i D••c•u•TION

., i�

,o •c.,it•

TO NltAIU!•T Tl!'"T'"

Y•'"-'I·

� Yl:A"

"ARYL•Nu

BALTIMORE - CITY

OMMERCE

.. ARITIME ADMINISTRATION

1313 05153 19 10050 000 BALT !MORE WAREHOUSE 4 1945 33.0

•501 CURTIS AVENUE

INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1417 07013 19 0050 000 FORT MCHENRY NAT MON I 1795 1836 0.3 1816 OD65

1838 0279

ioEFENSE

NAVY

1700 22't36 19 0050 1<>00 BETHLEHEM STEEL CO 4 1942 6.0

1700 122526 19 0050 000 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER l 1800 4,0 1816

1700 2"171 19 0050 000 R AND R DIST HDOTRS 4 1957 9.0

POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 04091 [9 0050 000 P O PARCEL POST STATION 2 1944 2,6 1939 CODE

1�01 ST PAUL ST 1943 0687 D2 01 1945

TREASURY

COAS 1 GUARD

2023 07844 19 0050 000 U S COAST GUARD YARD l 19D6 65.0 1906 1254 070

2023 078't4 19 0050 000 4 19't2 1954 48,2

1202J ic.J255 1q 0050 000 OEPO I BAL 11MORE 3 1804 5,0 1902 0364 0263

DEFEtiSE

ARMY

2100 20059 19 0050 000 BALTIMORE NATL CEMETERY l 1936 72,0 1906 1254 0743

2100 20061 19 0050 000 USAR CTR BALTO SHERIDAti 't 1953 't,O

2100 20'tl9 19 0050 000 HOLABIRD FORT 1 1917 1943 365.8 1906 125't 0743 O't 25 1942

1906 1254 0743 O't 22 l9't3

2100 20'tl9 19 0050 000 't l95't .2

2100 20532 19 0050 000 LOUDON PARK tiATL CEMETE l 1874 1903 6,0 1906 1254 07't3

12100 20913 19 0050 000 USAR CTR BAL TO PULASKI l l9't2 1.0 1906 1254 07"3 04 22 19"'3

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

3600 07273 19 0050 000 VA HOSPITAL l 1947 15,0 19't9 0894 0360 05 09 l9't9

3900 LOCH RAVEti BLVD

GENERAL SERVICES ADMlti

CENTRAL OFF ICE

4700 11192 19 0050 000 DASI BUI LOIN G 2 l95't 1962 89, l 1951 CODE 0016

GWYtiNOAK & SECUR !TY

REGIOti I 3 WASHINGTON

4703 03974 19 0050 000 PO & COURT HOUSE 1 1879 I. 3 1880 0006 0002

FAYETTE & CALVERT

---·

-f',703 04032 1 9 0050 000 APPRIASERS STORES I 1932 .2 192't CODE 3133

't703 O't032 19 0050 000 4 1833 .2

103 S GAY ST

4703 04033 19 0050 000 CALVERT BLDG 4 1946 .3

ST PAUL & FAYETTE

4703 04040 19 0050 000 CUSTOM HOUSE 1 1817 1938 1.3 1856 R 0176

WAIER & LOMBARD ST

4703 04089 19 0050 DOO MCCAULEY & MFGRS BLOG l 19't0 .1 1924 CODE 3133 09 14 1942

�00 B IDIBAIID ST

337

JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS

-. �--�

-....,,. ��i� .

co.. T"'Ol NO LOCATIO.. DATIi ACQ\J11tro l.4ND uu:A CIT4T•ON fO l.&CIIILATIVI AVTMOll1T¥

ITATI. IT ATV TC UCC�TA,IICl ..

OIICftlPTION •u........ ,.,1

, a , ,.IIIOM ,o ...c,.11 TO NC41tCIT TU,iTN

UACl•U•I HO

1924 3133 10 08 1951

HEAL TH ED ANO WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

7511 04042 19 0050 000 PHS QUARANTINE STATION l 1921 1926 19.0 1951 R

7511 04094 19 0050 000 PHS HOSP ITAL l 1884 1931 10. l 1884

WYMAN PARK DR , 31ST ST 1924 R

DEFENSE

CORPS OF ENG -CIVIL9600 09807 19 0050 000 23RD & HD AVE 4 1938 3.6

23RD & ND AVE

9600 10685 19 0050 ODO PERRY BAR SITE 4 1921 1.1

24 49 807.2•

ALLEGANY

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 0398', 19 0600 001 POST OFF ICE l 1909 .3 1906 07't3

MAIN & WATER STS

1800 O't020 19 0410 001 COURT HOUSE & p 0 l 1931 .8 1924 CODE

PERSHING ST

-DEFENSE

ARMY

2100 22317 19 0410 DOI USAR CTR CUMBERLAND 4 1960 6.0

DEFENSE

CORPS OF ENG -CIVIL9600 09809 19 0410 001 CUMBERLAND-RIDGELEY FC 4 1952 1962 44.0

4 6 51. l•

ANNE ARUNDEL

DEFENSE

NAVY

1700 23490 19 0030 003 HOSPITAL l 1868 19.0 1902

1700 23491 19 0030 003 ENGINEER EXPERIMENT STA l 1904 1944 50.6 1900

,1906 1254 0743

1939 04 21 1944

1700 23491 19 0030 003 4 1954 19.4

1700 231o92 19 0030 003 RADIO STATION l 1909 1944 526.0 1906 1254 0743

1939 03 04 1941

1939 O't 29 1944

1700 23496 19 0030 003 STATION BUPERS l 1808 1944 221.1 1902

1906 1254 0743 04 29 1944

1700 23496 19 0030 003 4 1944 1962 48.3

1700 23498 19 0030 003 SCH ACADEMY l 1808 1941 1.051.0 1900

1902

1906

1700 23498 19 0030 003 4 1950 112.0

-POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 04014 19 0030 003 POST OFFICE 3 1900 .a 1902 0364 0263

CHURCH g NORTHWEST

TREASURY

COAST GUARD

2023 08239 19 9999 003 BREWERTON CHANNEL LT l 1867 .N 1868 0217 0140

338

JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS

- ,.

2023 08239 19 9999 003

2023 08264 19 0115 003 GREEN8URY POlNT LT HO

2023 08292 19 9999 003 SANDY POINT LT STA

4 1867

1 1889

1 1883

ACftlllt . TO ,. .... 11!:.T T£oc·u•

s.o

5.0

1---�--�-+- �-+-�-�----i

1874 0274 0193

2023 10901 19 9999 003 THOMAS POINT LlGHT STA 1 1874 5.0 1874 0274 0193

DEFENSE

ARMY

2100 20026 19 0030 003 ANNAPOLlS NATL CEMETERY 1 1871 4.0 1872 0250 0173

2100 202-B 19 9999 003 CURTIS BAY STGE ACTY LE 1 1916 1943 826.0 1906 1254 0743 04 22 1943

2100 20567 19 0575 003 NEADE FORT GEORGE G 1 19�9 1943 13,553.0 1906 1254 0743 04 2 2 1943

1906 1254 0743 12 30 19"8

2100 20567 19 0575 003 2 1944 1.0 1943 0759 0687 07 2't 1945

2100 20567 19 0575 003 4 1956. .N

2100 21.r,19 19 9999 003 NIKE WASH &ALTO SITE 25 4 1955 48.0

2100 21445 19 9999 003 NIKE WASH BALTO SITE 26 4 1955 31.0

2100 21"46 19 1192 003 NIKE WASH BALTO SITE 43 4 1955 36.0

DEFENSE

CORPS OF ENG -CIVIL9600 10681 19 9999 003 BALTl NORE HARBOR & CHS 4 1913 .2

-17 16, 56.9.0•

BALT !MORE

INTERIOR

I NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1417 07012 ! 19 1585 005 HAMPTON NAT HI ST SITE .r, 1948 1953 45.4

DEFENSE

NAVY

1700 22444 19 1005 005 IND RESERVE AIRCR PLANT 4 1949 78.0

POST Off ICE

BUREAU Of FACILITIES

1800 03994 19 0255 005· PO BRANCH Of BALTIMORE 1 1938 .5 1924 CODE

1001 FREDERICK RO

1800 03995 19 0455 005 PO BRANCH OF BAL Tl NORE l 1940 .4 1924 CODE

SHIPPING & CENTER PL

1800 04027 19 1585 005 PO BRANCH OF 8ALTINDRE 1 1937 .3 1924 CODE

CHESAPEAKE & WASHINGTON

TREASURY

COAST GUARD

2023 08254 19 1500 005 CUTOFF CHAN RGE REAR LT 1 1885 •1 1874 0274 0193

2023 10903 19 9999 005 CRAIGHILL CH RGE LS 1 1874 5.0 1874 0274 0193

DEFENSE

-ARNY

2100 21379 19 1585 005 NIKE WASH 8ALTO SITE 92 4 1955 25.0

2100 21404 19 9999 005 NIKE WASH 8ALTO SITE 79 4 1955

2100 21411 19 9999 005 NIKE WASH 8ALTO SITE 09 4 1955 26.0

2100 21447 19 9999 005 NIKE WASH 8ALTO SITE 03 4 1955 55.0

339

-JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS

. ··- .

LOCAJIO,,,,

C-J•OL NO n•,1:1 •cou,•r.o L4,.0 A•ICA CITA110.. TO Lr.•IILAllYI: 4UTHO.llJ

., ��

01:,c,u"'"°" Ho1•u•"•

ITAJr llATUll:

i� u

AUOAOA•-OA..

4C1Ull 10 Nl:4ACIT 11!,.lH

r•a.chu•• "II••

r VBDRAIIS AllllllilSTRAlllOII

3600 07289 19 0572 005 VA HOSPITAL 3 1896 1899 94.6 1902 0364 0263

OLD NOR TH POINT RO

DEFENSE

AIR FORCE

5700 24632 19 0735 005 AF PLANT 0 AFP 4 1955 16.0

13 19 390.3•

CALVERT

DEFENSE

NAVY

1700 24309 19 1480 009 ORDNANCE LAB TEST FAC 1 1943 18.0 1906 1254 0743 07 15 1943

TREASURY

COAST GUARD

2023 08252 19 0965 009 COVE POINT LS 1 1828 2.0 1827 0201

2023 10907 19 9999 009 CRUPI POINT LIGHT STA 1 1883 5.0 1874 0274 0193

2023 10908 19 1110 009 NORTH BEACH LBS 3 1883 1884 .7 1902 0364 0263

-4 8 25. 7•

CAROLINE

GENERAL SERVICES AOPIIN

REGION t 3 WASHINGTON

4103 O't078 19 0440 011 POST OFF ICE SITE 4 1960 .1

N 2ND & IIARKET S TS

1 1 • 1•

CARROLL

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 03919 19 1670 013 POST OFF ICE 1 1931 .4 1924 CODE

83 EAST PIAIN

DEFENSE

ARNY

2100 22310 19 1670 013 USAR CTR WESTMINSTER 4 1959 4.0

FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY

6900 11310 19 1670 013 NAY FAC VOR 4 1956 .2

3 4 4.6•

CECIL

DEFENSE

-NAVY

1700 22562 19 0040 015 TRAINING CENTER 1 1942 1943 1,048.0 1906 125'- 0743 05 20 190

1906 1254 0743 02 18 19U

1906 1254 0143 06 28 1943

1100 24165 19 00'-0 015 TITLE Vll UIIANDR HGHTS 4 1953 139.0

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 03985 19 0520 015 POST OffICE l 1938 .8 1924 CODE

WEST MAIN ST

340

JURISDICTIONAL STATUS Of FEDERAL LAND AREAS

-�- --- -- -- - -,

..i� �- ·-� .

1.oc111,,o.. o,.,._, •c�••a:o ...... o ......... Cll4TIOM TO 1,.11:CIIILATIVII AVT'HOIUTT

COMTIIIOL HO

., ;, o•KIIIPTIOM ;; ... c.c, lO NC&IU ST Tl:N

,,�o• ..... cu

··---·····

•.... ,.. 1aT NO ••• ••• ..0

COAST GUARD

2023 08295 19 9999 015 TURKEY POIN T LIGHT 1 1832 1832 0150

VETERANS AOMJNJ STRATION

36D0 07308 19 1195 015 VA HOSPITAL 1 1918 1936 522. 1906 125't 0743

DEFENSE

CORPS OF ENG -CIVIL9600 09808 19 9999 015 CHESAPEAKE & DELA CAN 't 1919 1938 2,205.

9600 09810 19 9999 015 PEARCE CREEK DJS AREA 't 1937 682 .o

1 13 �.597

CHARLES

DEFENSE

NAVY

1700 23602 19 9999 017 MARCOR SCHOOL QUANTICO 1917 5 .o

1700 24396 19 9999 017 LABORATORY ONR 't 1961 2't .o

DEFENSE

-ARMY

2100 20263 19 0890 017 EAST COAST RAO REC STA l 1943 507 • 0 1906 1254 0743 O't 22 l9't3

2100 213"9 19 9999 017 NIKE WASH BALTO SITE 't5 ,, 1955 2" .o

2100 21350 19 9999 017 NIKE WASH 8ALTO SITE 5" ,, 1955 22 .o

5 6 582

DORCHESTER

INTERIOR

FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

l't35 09258 19 0230 019 BLACKWATER REFUGE 't 1933 1951 11,216 .3

DEFENSE

NAVY

1700 22't80 19 9999 019 AMPHIBIOUS BASE 't l9't5 19't8 6,012.o

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 O't017 19 0230 019 POST OFF ICE 1 1915 .3 1912 CODE

HIGH & Mill STS

TREASURY

COAST GUARD

2023 082't0 19 9999 019 CANBRDGE CHAN RGE FT LT 1 1902 •N l87't 0274 0193

2023 10906 19 9999 019 HOOPER ISLAND L S l l92't 5 .o 1874 0274 0193

1906 1254 0743

2023 13046 19 1630 019 NANTICOKE LASTA " 1961 .2 1943 0923 0687 05't 0019

6 11 17,233

FREDERICK

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 04023 19 0580 021 POST OFFICE l 1912 .5 1912 CODE

201 E PATRICK ST

341

JURISDICTIONAL' STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS

--.. i�.. . ..� ..

CO..T.OL ..o LOCATION OATll •C°'-'••itO 1,.A.. 0 AAP.,. CITATIO.. TO Lf:OISL&Tl'lll AUT .. 0•1TT

.. .. -- .. ·•- ... ...

;, oatc•U .. TIOM

�g ITATa ITATUT•

....,V_T..__, •uo•Auo• ••'"

�u

u AC.£1 . TO "'1:4Al!:IT TUfTH

Ut.CT.. laT ,.

DEFENSE

AR"Y

2100 2021,7 19 0232 021 DETRICK FORT 1 19" 1948 690.5 1950

0059 05 04 1950

2100 20267 19 0232 021 2 1945 12.2 1943 0759 0687 07 24 19't5

2100 2021>7 19 0232 021 1952 1957 511.3

2 7 l, 214. 5•

GARRETT

POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 O't031 19 1140 023 POST OFFICE 1 1939 .4 1939 CODE

SECOND ST

DEFENSE

CORPS OF ENG -CIVIL9600 09812 19 9999 023 YOUGHJOGHENY RIV RES 4 1938 19n 1,070.0

2 3 1,0l0.4t•

HARFORD

INTERIOR

FI SH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

l't35 09't06 19 0010 025 SUSQUEHANNA REFUGE 2 1852 1891 3.7 1888 1433 0091,

-POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 03981 19 0770 025 POST OFFICE I 1935 1936 .s 1924 CODE

310 NO UNION ST

1800 04015 19 0010 025 POST OFFICE I 1931, .3 l92't cooE

30 W BEL AIR AVE

1800 04016 19 0090 025 POST OFFICE I 1935 1.0 1924 CODE

143 N "AIN ST

DEFENSE

AR"Y

2100 20001 19 0015 025 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND I 1824 1943 72,856.0 1824 OOH 0054 07 10 1942

1906 1254 0743 04 22 1943

1901, 1254 0743 05 29 1943

2100 20001 19 0015 025 2 1944 11,.0 1943 01,80 08 16 19"

2100 20001 19 0015 025 4 1943 1946 1,897.0

5 15 74,774. 5•

HOWARD

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 04022 19 0530 027 POST OFFICE 1 1938 1939 .3 1924 CODE

!bl "AJN ST

DEFENSE

AR"Y

2100 21051 19 9999 027 "JCROWAVE STA D DA"ASCU 4 1953 3.0

-FEDERAL C°""UNICATIONS

2700 05076 19 1390 027 "ONITDR STA ANO LAB 4 1941 237.0

1/8 "I E OF GUI LFORO RO

3 4 240.3•

342

-JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS -,. .!'.�,,.., ··--·-LOC&llON OATf'S acovuu:o 1..•u•o ••r.• CITATIOtC TO Lf:GI.LATl\111, AUTNOot1TY

COO.T"OL ..0-. .. ... .. .. .. -· .. .•. ...

ITATI IT•TUTIII: •rc■•■a.TIO• l,UI

o••c .. ,•,10N

u• u .. .. o... , ACll&I • TO N&A•1t•T TF... 'fN

.., YICAII

=••

POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 04018 19 0 310 029 POST OFFICE l 1935 1936 .5 i9H CODE

SPRING ST

·DEFENSE

ARIIY

2100 21458 19 9999 029 NIKE IIASH BALTO SITE 30 4 1955 57.0

2 3 57.5•

MONTGO"ERY

COll"ERCE

C.OAST ANO GEODETIC. SURY

1307 05029 19 0630 031 VARIATION OF LAT 08SERY 3 1899 2.3 1902 0364 0263

OESELU" AYE G JA"ES ST

BUREAU OF PUBLIC. ROADS

1319 14628 19 9999 031 WM C BOWLES TRACT NO l 4 1953 1. 3

DEFENSE

NAVY

-1700 23450 19 0130 031 IIEOICAL CENTER l 1938 1939 241.0 1906 1254 070

1700 23895 19 0242 031 LABORATORY BUSHI PS l 1937 1943 159.0 1906 1254 0743 06 14 1943

1700 23895 19 0242 031 4 1946 26.0

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FAtlllTIES

1800 03973 19 0130 031 PO BRANCH OF WASH 0 t l 1937 .2 1924 CODE

7400 WISC.ONSIN N 11

1800 04028 19 1450 031 POST OFF ICE l 1936 .4 1924 CODE

8412 GEORGIA AVE

1800 O't029 19 1360 031 POST OFFICE l 1938 .6 1924 COOE

WASHINGTON ST

DEFENSE

ARMY

2100 20037 19 9999 031 ARMY MAP SERVICE 2 1945 33.0 1943 0759 0687 07 24 1945

2100 20037 19 9999 031 4 1946 1.0

2100 20364 19 1450 031 REED WALTER AMC GLENHAV 4 1947 20.0

2100 20743 19 0565 031 REED WALTER AMC FOREST l 1942 1943 182.0 1906 1254 07"3 04 2 2 1943

2100 21351 19 9999 031 NIKE IIASH BALTD SITE 92 4 1955 2't.O

2100 21352 19 9999 031 NIKE WASH BALTD SITE 93 4 1955 33.0

2100 21528 19 9999 031 NIKE IIASH BAUD SITE 94/ 4 19'ib 1 35.0

2100 21827 19 1360 031 USAR CTR ROC.KVILLE 4 1957 't.O

GENERAL SERVICES AD"IN --CENTRAL OFFICE

't700 12659 19 0630 031 BUR OF STANOAROS SITE 4 1956 555.0

REGION t 3 WASHINGTON

4703 04142 19 0130 031 p H S SITE l 1950 1.8 1953 CODE 0158 09 25 1953

9000 WI SC AVE

HEAL TH ED ANO WELFARE

PUBLIC. HEAL TH SERVICE

7511 04095 19 0130 031 NATL INSTS OF HEALTH l 1935 1942 229.6 1953 0151 lo9 25 1955

3 .. 3

� JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS

-��-- -�--------..,. --,._-.._ .u......... ..,•

-OATI.I ACCltJUIC0 LANO AA•• CITATtO.. TO ... 0,11.•n•c .ou, .. o.,,.

- --·•= .. ac,n • TONCAltlEIT TElolTM

.. .. ··-ITATC IT A TUT■

� --�...

l"<>CT•oc•• NO

7511 0"095 19 0130 031 19"9 76.7

9000 NISCONSJN AVENUE

7511 1"667 19 0130 031 N I H FARN 4 1960 't98.9

ATON JC ENERGY COIIN

8900 114"3 19 0660 031 AEC HEADQUARTERS 2 1955 98.9 1957 A 10 23 1951

1902 0263

190', 0357

1908 0194

1943 0687

8900 11 H3 19 0660 031 1960 2.0

DEFENSE

CORPS Of ENG -CIVIL9600 09811 19 9999 031 WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT 2 1853 1930 365.6 1853 0208 0179

9600 09811 19 9999 031 4 1950 1953 n.o

20 41 2,608.3•

PR JNCE GEORGES

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

1103 06330 19 0785 033 f B & S MONITORING S TA 4 1948 96.3

AGRICULTURE

AGR RESEARCH SERVJC E

1205 07305 19 0675 033 PLANT INTROOUCTJON S TA 4 1919 1940 70.0

-1205 08940 19 0100 033 AGRI RES CENTER OPER I 1910 1942 9,598.4 1906 1254 0743 04 22 19"3

1205 08940 19 0100 033 4 l9't0 1957 989.8

HOULTON ROAD

COMMERCE

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROAOS

1319 12583 19 9999 033 WOODROW WILSON 8RIOGE 4 1958 161.9

INTERIOR

BUREAU OF HINES

1415 06 810 19 0370 033 METALLURGY RESEARCH CTR 2 1935 12.9 1939 R

UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD

NATIONAL PARK SERYIC E

an 07166 19 9999 033 SUJ TLANO PARKWAY 2 1941 1944 537.3 19"3 0923 0687

FISH ANO WILDLIFE SERY

l't35 09267 19 0370 033 COLLEGE PARK TECH LA B 2 1935 1-4 1888 1433 0096 11 09 1935

DEFENSE

NAVY

1700 24437 19 0285 033 COHHUNICATION STATIO N l 1935 1943 559.0 1906 1254 070

1700 24437 19 0285 033 4 4.0

POST OFFICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 03978 19 11>20 033 POST OFFICE 1 1936 .4 1924 CODE

4030 NAIN ST

1800 03982 19 0900 033 POST OFFICE

324 HAIN ST � 1936 .5 1924 CODE

-1800 04026 19 0830 033 POST OFFICE l 1934 -5 1924 CODE

025 GALLATIN ST

1800 '12913 19 1330 033 P O SITE 4 1942 6-6

DEFENSE

ARNY

2100 213♦8 19 9999 033 NIKE WASH BALTO SITE 35 4 1955 31.0

-·

JURISDICTIONAL STATUS Of FEDERAL LAND AREAS

-- - -�-- .. -- --- -----,

..,. ��

\.0CA1'10N OATl:S ACQVIAt.O

CCINT.,.OL NO

••=

O&sc,uPTIC>ft

..c,u s - TO

:� u

1•AC••.. ••

.. ... c

NO ••• -• NO

2100 21569 19 9999 033 NIKE WASH 8ALTO SITE 36 4 1956 42.0

2100 22071 19 1330 033 USAR CTR RIVERDALE 4 1959 6.0

2100 22112 19 1520 033 WASHINGTON DEF HOOS SIT 1 1942 1906 1254 0743 07 0 194Z

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

3300 05169 19 1445 033 S I FACILITY l 1959 21.0

INDEPENDENCE AT 10TH SW

GE"ERAL SERVICES ADIUN

REGION I 3 WASH! NG TON

4703 04079 19 1520 033 SUITLAND 8LDGS l 1941 299. 7 1939 CODE 0031 07 06 1942

DEFENSE

AIR FORCE

5700 24000 19 0025 033 ANDREWS AFB l 1942 1943 4,272.0 1906 1254 0743

5700 24000 19 0025 033 4 1944 119.0

5700 24001 19 1620 033 GOVERNORS BRIDGE CST 4 1952 1,023.0

5700 24002 19 0175 033 BRANDYWINE CST 4 1952 1,635.0

5700 H803 19 0175 033 BRANDYWINE STG 4 1953 8.0

NATL _AERO £ SPACE ADMIN

8000 13865 19 0710 033 GOODARD SP FLT CENTER I 1936 5H.8 0468

-23 38 20,090.5•

ST MARYS

TREASURY

COAST GUARD

2023 08289 19 1205 037 PINEY POINT LTSTA l 1835 1941 2.4 1834 0265

1906 1254 0743 05 08 1942

2023 08290 19 1235 037 POINT LOOKOUT LT STA l 1832 ,._ 5 1825 0129 0169

2023 08290 19 1235 037 4 1951 2.0

2023 10902 19 9999 037 POINT NO POINT llGHT ST l 1924 5.o 1874 0274 0193

1906 1254 0743

DEFENSE

ARMY

2100 20714 19 1235 037 POINT LOOKOUT CONFE0 CE l 1910 1.0 1906 1254 0743

0UENSE

AIR FORCE

5700 24833 19 0930 037 HERNANVILLE GAP 4 1957 l.O

5 12 15.9•

SOMERSET

INTERIOR

FISH £ WILDllfE SERVICE

1435 10757 19 0400 039 MART IN REFUGE

-4 1954 1958 3,874.8

POST OFFICE

BUREAU Of FACILITIES

1800 04019 19 0400 039 POST OFFICE l 1932 .3 1924 CODE

MAIN £ 4TH STS

DEFENSE

31JS

·-JURISDICTIONAL' STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS -.. �� . ··�

LOCATION 0•T11:s •counu.:o L.U�D A•l!:4 CIT,.TIC)N TO Lll:GISLAT!"'I AUT>tQIUT ..

CONT"OI. ..o.

...._,.,__, •u•••••••••u•

�-... -- ., ., ,.. ......

011:■Cl'IPTION 0 STATt: ■TATUTr:

xw ►0 •cnr:1 , TO Nl:AACIT TIIINT ..

!� ;; 0

1■.oc,.. ar ., ,.

ARMY

2100 22075 19 0400 039 CRISFIELD RECREATION CT 4 1959 2.0

DEFENSE

CORPS OF ENC -CIVIL9600 10684 19 0400 039 BROAD CREEK 4 1913 l.4

4 5 3,878.5•

TALBOT

INTERIOR

FlSH ANO IIILDLIFE SERV

1435 12974 19 1180 041 OXFORO-BIOL-LAB 4 1959 ll.5

POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 04021 19 0480 041 POST OFFICE l 1933 .8 1924 CODE

116 E DOYER ST

2 3 12. 3•

IIASHINGTON

-INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1411 07011 19 1430 043 ANTI ETAN NBS/tEN l 1878 ll.3 1878 0019 0063

1417 07011 19 1430 043 2 1895 1915 42.8 1892 0244 0114

1417 07011 19 1430 043 4 1942 1962 311.6

EAST IIAIN STREET

POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 03980 19 0730 OH POST OFFICE l 1933 .9 1924 CODE

30-50 II FRANKLIN

DEFENSE

ARll'I'

2100 20758 19 0576 043 RITCHIE FORT 4 1951 634.0

2100 20890 19 9999 043 RITCHIE Ff SHE B SHARP 4 1953 546.0

DEFENSE

AIR FORCE

5100 24608 19 0730 043 AF PLANT ll AFP 2 1944 60.0 1943 0687 07 24 1945

5 ll 1.606.6•

IIICONICO

POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 03983 19 1380 045 POST OFFICE 1 1917 .5 1912 CODE

EAST MAIN ST

DEFENSE

-CORPS OF ENG -CIVIL9600 10682 19 1380 045 SAL I SBURV CHANNEL 4 1910 6.3

2 3 6-8•

346

... JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND ARW

.. i��

C°"TIOOL NO

LOCATION

oc,c1t1•TION

u ··-OAT Ila ,.CQUIIOllD

LANO AIOIIA

•c,.•• - TO .. I A.. t:IT TE.. TN

STAT& ITATUTII

••"-"•"

CITATION TO LllO•ILATIVII AUT.. O-TT

•4111

.•.

....�...

"· HO

•ne..,u••• ••T•

MO. OU

WORCBSTBR

INTERIOR

FISH ANO WILOLI FE SERV I

1435 09462 19 1150 047 CHINCOTEAGUE NAT REF 4 1943 1953 411.8

POST OFF ICE

BUREAU OF FACILITIES

1800 04030 19 1230 00 POST OFF ICE l 1937 .4 1924 CODE

207 MARKET ST

TREASURY

COAST GUARD

2023 08281 19 1150 047 OCEAN CITY LB STA l 1939 .9 1906 1254 0743

2023 10909 19 1150 OH OCEAN CITY MD L8STA 3 1878 1890 .2 1902 0364 0263

DEFENSE

CORPS OF ENI; -CIVIL9600 10683 19 1150 041 OCEAN CITY INLET 4 1933 28.3

5 8 "7.6•

NULT I-COUNTY INSTALL

INTERIOR

-NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1417 07167 19 9999 999 BAL T WASH PKWY 2 1950 1953 2,885.5 1943 0841 0644 II 03 19B

Hl7 07166 19 9999 999 CHESAPEAKE OHIO CANAL 2 1938 682.2 1904 0642 0357

1906 0266 0194

1902 0364 0263

1417 07171 19 9999 999 CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN PARK 4 1937 1940 5,746.1

HlT 13480 19 9999 999 C O CANAL NHP 2 1936 4,471 . 3 1902 0364 0263

1904 0642 0357

1908 0266 0194

1417 17163 19 9999 999 GEO WASH MEN PKWY 2 1931 1940 1,347.7 1902 0364 0263

1904 0642 0357

1906 0266 0194

1"17 17163 19 9999 999 4 1941 1960 652.0

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV

1435 09318 19 9999 999 PATUXENT RESEARCH CENTE 4 1933 1941 2,666.1

DEFENSE

NAVY

1700 23"36 19 9999 999 AIR STATION I 1942 1950 T,41".o 1906 1254 0743 06 06 1942

1906 1254 0743 OT 19 1943

1906 1254 0743 03 17 1950

1906 1254 0743 01 15 1943·

17D0 23436 19 9999 999 4 1958 Tf8.0

1700 23444 19 9999 999 LABORATORY BUWEPS 4 1944 869.0

1700 23456 19 9999 999 PROPELLANT PLANT 1 1890 3,265.4 1900

1902

1906 1254 0743

1700 23456 1 9 9999 999 4 1945 SS.6

1700 24108 19 9999 999 APPLIED PHYSICS LAB 4 1945 1.0

-1700 24109 19 9999 999 NAVAL RESERVE LAB I 1941 1943 170.1 1906 1254 0743 OT 15 1943

1906' 1254 0743 11 05 1941

1700 24109 19 9999 999 4 1944 84.9

1700 24132 19 9999 999 PUB WORKS OFFICE DIST l 1939 .5 1906 1254 0743

1700 24132 19 9999 999 4 1960 10.5

1700 24311 l 9 9999 999 WEAPONS LABORATORY l 1920 69.0 1906 1254 0743

1700 H395 19 9999 999 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER 4 1944 4.0

DEFENSE

347

JURISDICTIONAL STATUS OF FEDERAL LAND AREAS - -. ..- . �-'<- .. ... -LOCATION 04 T •• AC 0UUU O LANO 4,0t:A C!TATIO,. TO LCGIH ATl'II: AUTNO ... T't

COIIIT.OL NO

��

Ol'tC"•"'TION ST ... Tt: STATUTI:

u< •cco..,,..,.,• .,...

z•

i� u

•c,.1:0 TO NCA•l:aT TIINT ..

••ACT.. c•T " NO

Yl:A"

ARNY

2100 20036 19 9999 999 AR"Y CHE" CTR I 1917 1943 4,473.0 1906 1254 0743 07 28 1942

1906 1254 Olt 22 1943

2100 20036 19 9999 999 4 1948 1951 80.0

2100 21294 19 9999 999 NIKE WASH BALTO SITE 44 4 1955 31.0

16 45 35. 766.9•

180 360 182, 052.6a

-348

-JU R ISDICTION AL STATUS OF FEDER AL LANO A R EAS

_ __ ___l!JJLJ-1.P...Lf.__J;ll11fiJ 'l'._Llll.J.!lGS ___

--�M=AR'fL�

INTER IO= R'---NATI ONAL PARK SERVIC E

_ J� 7 01..li]_ 1�

_ _999 999 BAL T WASH PKWY

_ 003 ANNE ARUNDEL

_ _ _ _ _0_33 PRINC_f_M_ O R GES _ _

1417 07168 19 9999 999 C H E SAPEAKE OHIO C ANAL

_0_31_ MO� _!,�'f__

043 WASHINGTON

1417 07171 19 9999 999 C ATOCTIN MOUNTAIN. PARK

021 FREDERICK

__ __ 04) WASH l_li(;TCN __ _ _

1417 13480 19 9999 999 C O C ANAL NHP

QQ_l AkLEG. AN� _ _ ...

021 FRED E RICK

_ __ _ _J)_}_l_!40NTG_OMER_ Y_ _

043 WASHINGTON

1417 17163 19 9999 EM K Y

�!;

_ _J) :p_

��T��!�R�

PR GEO

__P � __

I N<;j' __ _ )IGE S __

F_I_ St!....!,�O_!!l

_ L DL I F E_ _g RV

------------ -------- --1435 09318 19 9999 999 PATUX E NT RESE ARCH CE-NTE

00) ANNE ARUNDEL _ ___ _ _

OH PRIN C E G E ORGES

DEFENSE

--- ----�N

0 ,A

�V�Y'----- --- -----·------------- ·-- _ _______ _ _ _ __ -·-·---------- ____ _______

1700 23436 19 9999 999 AIR STAliON

g�� i"'�-"'�"-:-=-�- --g��

------- :�l��:y�EORG E S_

, _______ ______ _________ ____________________ ______________

_1700 _ 23444 19 9999 91/9 LABORATORY BUWEPS- -031 MDNTGOM E RY.

OH PRI NCE G E ORGES

1700 23456 19 9999 999 PROPELLANT PLANT

_J).U Ct<AIU.f5___ _ _

033 PRINCE GEORGES

---- ---------_J_!90 �__1_9___'!._2_'l_9__ .'l.2..2.._!.!'_PJ-I _ _ D � YS IC�S LAB_

_ E __ _

027 HOWARD

___.ll3 l. _filllil_GGM.E..ll.'L_____ ___

1700 2'-109 19 9999 999 NAVAL RESERVE LAB

__oo9 CALV.ERL __ _

041 TA LBOT

1700 24132 19 9999 OF FIC�E� lS

D�= T�-------------------------�� :�:D��!

____JJ_l.7 ST. .l!ARY-5. __ _

1700 2',311 19 9999 999 W E APONS LA BORATORY

gl� §�A:��-------------------------- ------------------_ JJJ)9 24 3.9.Li.9 999.L.'l'!9 R E SE_R l/ E___!MJ NIN_G -filH_

�=

031 MONTGOMERY

---------�.LP.JU.ru.J"-'""'"""=----------------------------------__ )Ef= -ARMY

2100 20036 19 9999 R'----------� �C�T�

==��l ::

-- - ___j)li..J!A&EJl.RD ____ _ - ---2100 21294 19 9999 999 NIKE WASH BALTO SITE 44

_____ __ _,,_...,_cJ:W1.LE.s..

-033 PRINCE G E OR G E S

16 36

Ft. Detrick/W. Reed Army Med. Housing v. Wynn

Authorities cited

Opinion · public domain